Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

Featured Posts

25 minutes ago, Nimdoorquoi said:

You got me there. What do you mean?!

 

Don't worry about it.  Some members of this forum have strange senses of humour which really shouldn't be used on new members who don't know them.

 

To answer your question.  An empty motor weighs about 14 tons, an empty butty around 10 tons.  The record load for a pair was Buckden and Brighton carrying just over 62 tons of grain.

 

Add the lot together and you have 86 tons.

 

HTH

 

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on what you mean by "fully laden", because the design of the boats with higher hull sides than most traditional craft of the time permitted a much larger theoretical load than the state of dredging of the canals ever actually allowed in practice.  Loading records tend to show these boats were not in practice loaded with any more tonnage than the classes of boat with lower hull sides.  Something in the range of 50 to 55 tons on a pair was the norm, 60 tons would be exceptional, although the boats themselves were more than capable.

 

I guess the combined empty weight of a pair of fully equipped boats was maybe around 25 tons, (I could be wrong though!), so I suggest boats plus a "full load" probably 75 to 80 tons.

 

All that of course moved by an 18HP engine, making you realise how absurdly over-engined many modern leisure narrow boats actually are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, alan_fincher said:

All that of course moved by an 18HP engine, making you realise how absurdly over-engined many modern leisure narrow boats actually are.

As you know Alan, they were "proper" horses in them days, not these spindly legged Japanese things! ?

 

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also had in my head that the difference in weight between an empty motor and empty butty was of the order of 4 tons.  This always kind of surprises me, as the engine and gearbox itself would weigh less than a ton.  Obviously the engine room and engine bearers adds a bit, but there isn't that much steel in those.  Apart from that you have stern gear and prop shaft, extra weight of a counter stern, and fuel and fuel tanks, (I'm assuming quoted weights normally assume fuel tanks are full?).

 

What people may not realise is that without some added ballast the back end of these boats would float a lot higher than most unconverted examples you see now that people think of as "empty".  In practice most have at least a ton of ballast at the back to keep the back end down to a point where thew prop is reasonably effective.  Why several of the uhe ubiquitous 40 gallon blue plastic barrels  are too be found in so many unconverted boats!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

Don't worry about it.  Some members of this forum have strange senses of humour which really shouldn't be used on new members who don't know them.

 

To answer your question.  An empty motor weighs about 14 tons, an empty butty around 10 tons.  The record load for a pair was Buckden and Brighton carrying just over 62 tons of grain.

 

Add the lot together and you have 86 tons.

 

HTH

 

George

George, even though I'm *new* I'd love to understand the humour! 

 

What worries me slightly is that there is an extraordinary amount of knowledge out there held in the old fashioned way: memory.

 

I get so much useful information from kind, generous and passionate people with treasure chests full of the stuff that it worries me that most of this will not be able to be passed on and the world is at risk of slowly losing it. 

 

How can we pass this information into a more modern realm, like a book say?!

 

:'P

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rusty69 said:

African or European? 

 

1 hour ago, Nimdoorquoi said:

You got me there. What do you mean?!

 

It’s a reference to a quote from the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Wasn’t that funny then either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there any particular reason for the question? Why Woolwich-built boats rather than Northwich ones? (I've always preferred Northwich boats myself. :captain: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

Depends on what you mean by "fully laden", because the design of the boats with higher hull sides than most traditional craft of the time permitted a much larger theoretical load than the state of dredging of the canals ever actually allowed in practice.  Loading records tend to show these boats were not in practice loaded with any more tonnage than the classes of boat with lower hull sides.  Something in the range of 50 to 55 tons on a pair was the norm, 60 tons would be exceptional, although the boats themselves were more than capable.

 

I guess the combined empty weight of a pair of fully equipped boats was maybe around 25 tons, (I could be wrong though!), so I suggest boats plus a "full load" probably 75 to 80 tons.

 

All that of course moved by an 18HP engine, making you realise how absurdly over-engined many modern leisure narrow boats actually are.

Unless they were being steered by Jackie Monk, who never seemed to heve more than a couple of inches between the gunwhale and the waterline, although I don't know whether he actiuually steered any large Woolwich boats.

Edited by David Schweizer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, furnessvale said:

To answer your question.  An empty motor weighs about 14 tons, an empty butty around 10 tons.  The record load for a pair was Buckden and Brighton carrying just over 62 tons of grain.

 

Add the lot together and you have 86 tons.

 

HTH

 

George

 

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

I guess the combined empty weight of a pair of fully equipped boats was maybe around 25 tons, (I could be wrong though!), so I suggest boats plus a "full load" probably 75 to 80 tons.

I am a little sceptical of the figure Harland and Wolff Ltd. quoted as 'B.o.T. Registered Tons' for the large Woolwich boats - motors @ 19.5 tons and buttys @ 18.0 tons, with the small Woolwich boats being exactly 2 tons lighter :captain:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nimdoorquoi said:

What worries me slightly is that there is an extraordinary amount of knowledge out there held in the old fashioned way: memory.

 

I get so much useful information from kind, generous and passionate people with treasure chests full of the stuff that it worries me that most of this will not be able to be passed on and the world is at risk of slowly losing it. 

 

How can we pass this information into a more modern realm, like a book say?!

 

:'P

The thing that I find fascinating is that we are all enthusiasts of one sort or another but many people specialise in different aspects. I am only interested in boats, but somebody else is interested in boat families, and somebody else in old canal maps, and somebody else it will be buildings, and on and on.

 

It would be impossible to capture all of this into a book, and the costs would be horrendous. A more cost effective method would be to build websites, but from my own observations of boat related websites these are generally poorly researched and poorly maintained until finally becoming abandoned. I imagine many other specialist websites are similar. 

 

Then there is the problem of who does the research, then who does the editing, and who does the proof reading and how is this all funded. So many people believe the first thing that they read, and so much of what is already published is dire rubbish that creating a credible website / publication is now very difficult - and it would be left to a handful of individuals who set the standards with first hand research (rather than quoting somebody elses work) to carry out these tasks.

 

As for me, well I do have a few notes that interest a few boat owners - but I am not interested in publication in any form and I have no yearning to see my name in print. As always I will answer specific questions and I will continue to support those who wish to publish :captain:

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Schweizer said:

Unless they were being steered by Jackie Monk, who never seemed to heve more than a couple of inches between the gunwhale and the waterline, although I don't know whether he actiuually steered any large Woolwich boats.

I remember Jack Monk with the large Woolwich motor BLETCHLEY and small Woolwich butty ARGUS, but the only thing he was loaded with was school kids :captain:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pete harrison said:

 

I am a little sceptical of the figure Harland and Wolff Ltd. quoted as 'B.o.T. Registered Tons' for the large Woolwich boats - motors @ 19.5 tons and buttys @ 18.0 tons, with the small Woolwich boats being exactly 2 tons lighter :captain:

I would be more than a little sceptical.  I had Alton hanging on the hook of a 70 ton all terrain crane with the bell ringing.  The driver told me that his gauges were telling him that Alton weighed 14 tons.

 

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The great man himself with Bletchley and Argus. (Sorry about quality). Biggest load I ever had on a big Northwich was 26 tones and couldn’t get past Napton. Nick Hill often had Jaguar down to the gunwales.

979CA749-CD70-439A-8C96-1608760DA09D.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dav and Pen said:

The great man himself with Bletchley and Argus. (Sorry about quality). Biggest load I ever had on a big Northwich was 26 tones and couldn’t get past Napton. Nick Hill often had Jaguar down to the gunwales.

I believe your photograph is OWL and ARGUS, BLETCHLEY being unconverted as a conventional camping boat.

 

I have a lasting memory from about 1984 of Jack Monk on BLETCHLEY having a young lady with a baby 'in tow'. I was under the impression that the baby was his but I would be very happy to be corrected :captain:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nimdoorquoi said:

George, even though I'm *new* I'd love to understand the humour! 

 

What worries me slightly is that there is an extraordinary amount of knowledge out there held in the old fashioned way: memory.

 

I get so much useful information from kind, generous and passionate people with treasure chests full of the stuff that it worries me that most of this will not be able to be passed on and the world is at risk of slowly losing it. 

 

How can we pass this information into a more modern realm, like a book say?!

 

:'P

 

 

If you are referring to canal history, there are many many existing books available, just a matter of hunting them down.

 

Most of the working boaters were illiterate as they only had the opportunity of limited schooling or none. Everything had to be confined to memory. Working boaters who are still with us are very suspicious of those "off the bank" asking questions about their lives and with good reason. This is because in the past canal people were the butt of insults, stone throwing and other unsavory acts towards them. Ignorance on the part of "land dwellers." Some shop keepers would not serve them, also in the cases of sickness some doctors would not visit them either.

 

A few boaters had an education later in life and have written books about their lives, e.g.   John Blunn, "Cockerel's in the Cut" and Alice Lapworth,  "A Horse, A Boat And You."

 

Just a matter of research.

 

 

Edited by Ray T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dav and Pen said:

The great man himself with Bletchley and Argus. (Sorry about quality). Biggest load I ever had on a big Northwich was 26 tones and couldn’t get past Napton. Nick Hill often had Jaguar down to the gunwales.

979CA749-CD70-439A-8C96-1608760DA09D.jpeg

Great pic Dav and Pen!

 

I wonder, does anyone know of any photographs of Cambourne prior to conversion? It would have been privately owned but still carrying with a new BW back cabin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nimdoorquoi said:

Great pic Dav and Pen!

 

I wonder, does anyone know of any photographs of Cambourne prior to conversion? It would have been privately owned but still carrying with a new BW back cabin. 

If it's not CRT I'll delete it, then you may delete the copy if you so desire.

Edited by Ray T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ray T said:

Sam Brooks on Cambourne. From The CRT Archive.

SamBrooksCambourne2.jpg

I'm very intrigued if that photo is on the CRT archive.

I'm sure it is copyright my brother Mike, and I doubt he has ever submitted anything to the CRT archive.

Do you have a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photo is mine I’m sorry memory played up again and I got the wrong motor. I took this and some others when we hired in Jacks pair to help with a 6 boat camping trip. Somewhere I have a photo of all of us lined up at Shardlow wharf just after the pub was made from the old warehouse from where we started this trip. I have been slowly scanning 35mm slides onto my iPad but it’s a very slow and tedious job.

Copyright would be mine

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.