Hello again! Any thoughts / opinions on MCC boats please?

[ARAL]

Hello again, I’m back after a break of some 2 years or so, having posted some time ago regarding different hull and engine manufacturers. I have recently re-read that thread and it reminded me how helpful everyone was at that stage. ?

Well, fast forward a couple of years, and I’m back again looking for my ideal narrowboat. I have seen one for sale at Great Haywood (I went to look at it on Friday, along with some others) that was made by MCC (Midland Canal Centre, I think). It looks like a good quality fit-out, but I can’t seem to find a lot of information / thoughts on their products as a whole. So, I am hoping that once again you will all come to my aid. Thanks in advance. Andrew. 

 

[mrsmelly]

31 minutes ago, ARAL said:

Hello again, I’m back after a break of some 2 years or so, having posted some time ago regarding different hull and engine manufacturers. I have recently re-read that thread and it reminded me how helpful everyone was at that stage. ?

Well, fast forward a couple of years, and I’m back again looking for my ideal narrowboat. I have seen one for sale at Great Haywood (I went to look at it on Friday, along with some others) that was made by MCC (Midland Canal Centre, I think). It looks like a good quality fit-out, but I can’t seem to find a lot of information / thoughts on their products as a whole. So, I am hoping that once again you will all come to my aid. Thanks in advance. Andrew. 

 

My Bro in law has one. He has owned it about 8 years now I reckon. We are travelling round with him at moment. He likes it and the build looks good to me. He certainly is pleased with it. Shell still in very good order at nearly twenty years old. I suppose you know they were built at Stenson?

Edited July 2, 2018 by mrsmelly

[jeanb]

We've had two MCC boats, the first was six years old, our second was a newbuild. We're not experts but both boats are fine and the local BSS surveyor concurred.

[Jess--]

Stenson / MCC 45 foot boat here at just under 30 years old.

hull is still sound, had some pitting on the waterline just above the counter last time it was out for blacking (less than 12 inches in length affected, filled with weld, ground level and blacked over) will see what it's like after another 3 years when it comes out at the end of this month to be blacked again.

Stenson / MCC boats do tend to have longer swims than you find on a lot of newer boats and also have a longer taper at the bow, you don't notice the bow from outside but when inside the cabin floor isn't full width until about 5 feet into the cabin (it's not much but if you are changing the internal layout you will find the angles at the front of the cabin interesting)

if it's a boat of similar age to mine with a cruiser stern check the drainage channels under the engine hatch, mine has recently developed a drip (prior to that it stayed bone dry under there which is almost unheard of on a cruiser stern)
again if a similar age you may find that the rudder cup is on it's last legs, mine certainly is (being replaced when it's out of the water at the end of the month), the top bearing is perfectly fine.

superstructure seems to be good quality, certainly straighter lines than I have seen on a lot of boats, angle on the tumblehome seems right and the gunwales are a nice width to walk along without worrying.

in the water the boat handles well and doesn't need a lot of power to move fairly swiftly, at normal canal speeds the tiller is very positive but not too heavy and I find that you can steer comfortably for long periods at a time (longest I have done so far was just under 14 hours), on wider / deeper water the rudder response improves massively and the power needed drops but if you are in a situation where you can wind on lots of power and move at speeds you can only dream of on canals (gps tracker clocked us at 11 Mph over the ground, probably around 8mph through the water) you will find that the tiller becomes very heavy but the boat handles and turns like it's on rails.

 

Edited to add the following....

I can't say much about the fitout because I don't know how much of the fitout on mine is original and how much has been changed over the years

 

if it has the lister LPWS4 engine (which they seemed to favour at the time mine was built) bear in mind that it's only a 100 hours between oil changes. with my usage patterns this means an oil change every 2 weeks of use.

 

if it has the same heating setup as mine (engine heats calorifier / alde gas boiler heats radiators and calorifier) you can cheat a little by turning the heating on (without the boiler lit) while cruising and you will find that the engine will also heat the radiators via the calorifier quite happily giving you a toasty cabin when you stop cruising (just remember to turn it off when you stop or you end up with cold water)

 

The only thing I can fault my boat for (apart from not being longer) is the lack of a multifuel stove

 

Edited again to add pics showing bow & swim length

 

pics are from just after we bought the boat and it had not been blacked for around 5 years

Edited July 3, 2018 by Jess--

[ARAL]

Thankyou everyone (so far) for your thoughts / opinions. It does seem like quite a good quality fit-out, but I guess it’s the things which you can’t see that are the things you actually want to know about. I was aware that there was a link to Stenson; is that a good, or bad, thing?

[MtB]

I've always considered MCC boats to be first class boats. You don't see them for sale often. 

[Athy]

19 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

I've always considered MCC boats to be first class. 

There must be a cricket joke in there somewhere.

Mrs. Athy and I viewed one of their "Little Gem" range (about a 40-footer I think) at their place (or possibly at Sawley Marina who were their agents at the time) some years ago. I recall that we were quite impressed by the fit-out and by the use of space.

[reg]

Only dealings I have had with them were when I bought my engine, mounts, centaflex, prop and shaft from them. Found them to be good people and straightforward people to deal with. 

Have met a couple of MCC owners and they seemed happy enough with their boats 

[ARAL]

Thanks again to all of you, it would appear that these are generally viewed as high-quality boats. The one I am looking at has an Isuzu 43 hp engine; any thoughts on these?

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, ARAL said:

Thanks again to all of you, it would appear that these are generally viewed as high-quality boats. The one I am looking at has an Isuzu 43 hp engine; any thoughts on these?

Superb engines. A friend of mine has them in his hire fleet. Take tremendous abuse. Its Japanese so its going to be good. My present boat also has one.

[rusty69]

2 minutes ago, ARAL said:

Thanks again to all of you, it would appear that these are generally viewed as high-quality boats. The one I am looking at has an Isuzu 43 hp engine; any thoughts on these?

Isuzu 42,good engine imo. 

[ARAL]

Thanks again to everyone for their thoughts. I think I might go and take another look at the MCC boat in the near future, and will continue to monitor the various brokerages, etc. in the meantime. 

[ARAL]

On 03/07/2018 at 09:50, Jess-- said:

Stenson / MCC 45 foot boat here at just under 30 years old.

hull is still sound, had some pitting on the waterline just above the counter last time it was out for blacking (less than 12 inches in length affected, filled with weld, ground level and blacked over) will see what it's like after another 3 years when it comes out at the end of this month to be blacked again.

Stenson / MCC boats do tend to have longer swims than you find on a lot of newer boats and also have a longer taper at the bow, you don't notice the bow from outside but when inside the cabin floor isn't full width until about 5 feet into the cabin (it's not much but if you are changing the internal layout you will find the angles at the front of the cabin interesting)

if it's a boat of similar age to mine with a cruiser stern check the drainage channels under the engine hatch, mine has recently developed a drip (prior to that it stayed bone dry under there which is almost unheard of on a cruiser stern)
again if a similar age you may find that the rudder cup is on it's last legs, mine certainly is (being replaced when it's out of the water at the end of the month), the top bearing is perfectly fine.

superstructure seems to be good quality, certainly straighter lines than I have seen on a lot of boats, angle on the tumblehome seems right and the gunwales are a nice width to walk along without worrying.

in the water the boat handles well and doesn't need a lot of power to move fairly swiftly, at normal canal speeds the tiller is very positive but not too heavy and I find that you can steer comfortably for long periods at a time (longest I have done so far was just under 14 hours), on wider / deeper water the rudder response improves massively and the power needed drops but if you are in a situation where you can wind on lots of power and move at speeds you can only dream of on canals (gps tracker clocked us at 11 Mph over the ground, probably around 8mph through the water) you will find that the tiller becomes very heavy but the boat handles and turns like it's on rails.

 

Edited to add the following....

I can't say much about the fitout because I don't know how much of the fitout on mine is original and how much has been changed over the years

 

if it has the lister LPWS4 engine (which they seemed to favour at the time mine was built) bear in mind that it's only a 100 hours between oil changes. with my usage patterns this means an oil change every 2 weeks of use.

 

if it has the same heating setup as mine (engine heats calorifier / alde gas boiler heats radiators and calorifier) you can cheat a little by turning the heating on (without the boiler lit) while cruising and you will find that the engine will also heat the radiators via the calorifier quite happily giving you a toasty cabin when you stop cruising (just remember to turn it off when you stop or you end up with cold water)

 

The only thing I can fault my boat for (apart from not being longer) is the lack of a multifuel stove

 

Edited again to add pics showing bow & swim length

 

pics are from just after we bought the boat and it had not been blacked for around 5 years

Thankyou Jess.  I have just been looking at your post and photos again, and I am very encouraged by this information. The one I have been looking at is 55 feet long, so should overcome your only criticism of length on your boat. It also has diesel fired central heating, so different from yours in that respect to; I suspect this might be because it is a little newer. I am not sure if this will  work, but I will attempt to attach a link to it below. Thanks again. Andrew. 

 

https://www.greathaywoodboatsales.co.uk/shop/the-jolly-buccaneers/

 

[Alan de Enfield]

42 minutes ago, ARAL said:

I am not sure if this will  work, but I will attempt to attach a link to it below. Thanks again. Andrew. 

You might want to ask who commissioned a survey in June 2018 (and why)

 

If it was a potential buyer, what was found in the survey that meant the buyer did not go ahead ?

 

If it was commissioned by the seller, then by all means ask to view it, but remember it is likely to be 'written' and focussed on the positives, where as a buyers survey will be the opposite.

[MtB]

On 03/07/2018 at 15:48, ARAL said:

Thanks again to all of you, it would appear that these are generally viewed as high-quality boats. The one I am looking at has an Isuzu 43 hp engine; any thoughts on these?

 

Ridiculously over-powered.

 

Narrow boats back in the day used to find 1hp enough. 

[BruceinSanity]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ridiculously over-powered.

 

Narrow boats back in the day used to find 1hp enough. 

But didn't they say one horse on the bank is worth ten in the cut?

[ARAL]

Thanks again for the advice. I have seen the survey, but it was only a hull survey, and did not cover anything else, so I would obviously want to get a full buyer’s survey done if I decide to proceed with this one. The one thing I did note was that the surveyor had recommended treating and painting the base plate (it was showing 0.1 - 0.5 mm of corrosion in places), but the broker told me that surveyors always say this to cover themselves, and that nobody ever does the base plate. Any thoughts on this? As for the engine power, I would always rather have more than is required - I would rather have a bigger engine doing less work than a small engine working hard. What are your thoughts on the price; £60k seems quite a lot to me? Thanks once again. Andrew. 

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, ARAL said:

I would rather have a bigger engine doing less work than a small engine working hard

A diesel engine is designed to 'work hard', the worst possible things for a diesel engine is not using it, running it under low load and not changing the oil regularly.

 

To work efficiently and cleanly a diesel needs to be running at optimum temperature, which means it must be running under load.

 

The last but one boat I bought was 12 years old and had 73 hours on the engines - great you may think they are almost 'new'. 

Not so, it has taken a lot of work and high load running to get them 'working properly' - they appear never to have had an oil change and had sat for 12 years in the same black-acidic oil.

 

I would rather buy a 10,000 hour engine (well maintained) than a 100 hour one.

[ARAL]

I get what you’re saying Alan, but if I ever want to get on / across the tidal Thames then I figure it might be good to have a bit in reserve. 

[Nightwatch]

I, personally would be satified with just a hull survey. We had a full survey on Nightwatch when we bought 13 years ago. IMO a complete waste of money. ie. Toilet seals gone. Water pump seals gone. Electrics in a mess. I won't go on. The survey said he can only survey accessible areas and check if things work when they are in operation. All these things were an easy,ish, fix. The hull and engine are the only things that need surveying. If the hull survey was positive and this boat has a good engine, (Nightwatch has 50 HP) then I would accept what you know.

 

This boat looks very nice indeed. Good layout and well set up for long cruising. Get in quick if your heart and pocket are set on it. The toilet flusher handle is a bit of overkill me thinks. Oh! And try an offer. You never know. Go for it.

We have done the northern river, is it the Ouse? It was fantastic to open up the revs. A 55' speed boat. And it was good on the downward journey against the tide for twenty minutes.

[ARAL]

Thankyou Nightwatch, it is always good to hear other people’s thoughts. I think maybe the toilet flush handle you are referring to is actually the toilet roll holder; the flush is on a button panel on the back wall! ?

Does £60k for an 8-year-old MCC boat seem a bit ‘optimistic’ to you; I believe it has done around 1,000 engine hours?

[MtB]

1 hour ago, ARAL said:

I would always rather have more than is required - I would rather have a bigger engine doing less work than a small engine working hard. 

 

This line of thinking is one of the reasons I think for ridiculously big engines in modern narrow boats. The other I suspect is the small diameter propellers which have to be fitted to modern shallow draft hulls. I had a NB with a 30hp Beta and an 15” blade once, and the performance was pathetic. Took loads of revs to get it going and even more revving the nuts off it to make it stop. Now the new non technical narrow boat owner would say ‘not enough power’and make a note to get a bigger engine in his next boat, hence the continuing trend for ever bigger engines. The root problem however is the hill design limiting blade diameter in my opinion. 

 

I have a 21” blade on this boat and with the previous engine (35hp beta), performance was phenomenal!

[Robbo]

22 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ridiculously over-powered.

 

Narrow boats back in the day used to find 1hp enough. 

Although one horse is nearly 15hp, a human is around 1-3hp (briefly).

Edited July 8, 2018 by Robbo

[ARAL]

Thankyou Mike, I have no real understanding of the ideal prop size / power ratio. My hope is that whoever built / specced the boat from new will know more about this and have made the best choice. Maybe my opinion is slightly skewed by the fact that I drive a 3-litre diesel as my daily transport, and it’s currently still running like a perfectly-oiled sewing machine at over 150,000 miles (and good for 300,000, I’m told). I like the fact that most of the time it doesn’t have to work hard, but it’s good to know that there is plenty in reserve should I need it. I know I’m getting off-topic now, but I suspect a similar age / mileage 1.6 litre would not be fairing so well. 

[MtB]

30 minutes ago, ARAL said:

Thankyou Mike, I have no real understanding of the ideal prop size / power ratio. My hope is that whoever built / specced the boat from new will know more about this and have made the best choice.

 

You're welcome. 

 

But as with all matters boat, choices have to be made to balance conflicting requirements. As blade diameter rises, engine power is transferred into the water increasingly efficiently (i.e. few losses), so boat acceleration and deceleration (stopping) is improved. Early narrow boats had blades up to 30" in diameter I believe. 

 

The conflicting requirement is for a big blade to work, deep water is necessary. In canal heydays canals were typically dredged to 4'6" or 5'0" or even deeper. Nowadays CRT consider 24" plenty. The bottom of the canal however is usually a sludgy mix of leaves, silt, old bikes, traffic cones etc so most hull builders make the draft 24", but some build to less, especially their shorter boats. The boat I mentioned earlier with the 15" blade was built to 18" draft. I'd recommend against buying a boat this shallow. 

 

Once there is enough room to fit a blade 20" or bigger, a 25hp engine will push the boat around just fine for 99.99% of the time.