Jump to content

Featured Posts

6 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

It looks very much like my boat."Popsie"original steel spec,6,5,3mm.Built 1978,and has had the swim plate overplated at some time,but the rest of the hull is fine according to a recent survey.

 I value her around 12-15K,because of size and age,and the boat you have pointed out ,I think a little more,perhaps 15-18K,perhaps the price is a bit inflated because of the desirable mooring.

The asking price may well be just a guide. As a matter of interest two boats that have been sold recently at my mooring one was initially priced at 22K,then reduced to 171/2K,and sold for 15K.The other 26K and sold for 18K.

 

PS Are you the person who posted recently with the poor eyesight?

 

 

Thank you Harold.  I have just spoken to Whilton Marina who have a few boats around the length I am interested in from £15k-£26k, I will take a trip up there next week.  Yes  I am the visually impaired prospective boater, hence the short length boat!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If the registration details are correct she does look to be a very narrow, narrowboat, and surprisingly 'shallow' if she is indeed a V-Hull.

 

Solitude Built by Total - Length : 10.36 metres ( 34 feet ) - Beam : 2.07 metres ( 6 feet 9 inches ) - Draft : 0.48 metres ( 1 foot 7 inches ). Metal hull N/A power of 20 HP. Registered with Canal & River Trust number 46617 as a Powered Motor Boat.  ( Last updated on Friday 20th April 2012 )

Thank you for that Alan!  I will arrange to view her and also visit Whilton Marina next week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If the registration details are correct she does look to be a very narrow, narrowboat, and surprisingly 'shallow' if she is indeed a V-Hull.

 

 

The standard width of a modern narrowboat in metric is, I think, 2m08cm. So it's only one centimetre (about two-fifths of an inch) narrower than the norm, which should not make a deal of difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Athy said:

The standard width of a modern narrowboat in metric is, I think, 2m08cm. So it's only one centimetre (about two-fifths of an inch) narrower than the norm, which should not make a deal of difference.

My understanding was that 'modern' NB's were 6' 10" - 6' 11" so at 6' 9" it would be up to a couple of inches narrower than 'standard'.

 

I thought that 30 years ago they were built to nearer 7' ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

My understanding was that 'modern' NB's were 6' 10" - 6' 11" so at 6' 9" it would be up to a couple of inches narrower than 'standard'.

 

I thought that 30 years ago they were built to nearer 7' ?

 

You could be right - but wasn't there a case a couple of years ago in which a boatbuilder was fined for supplying a hull which was over 6'10" wide which was considered by a judge not to be fit for its purpose? So we may look at 6'10", or 2m08cm, as the limit of their width.

Working boats were built to 7'0" or even very slightly wider. Not sure about the boats of 30 years ago in general, but I suspect that 6'10" has been normal for many years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

My understanding was that 'modern' NB's were 6' 10" - 6' 11" so at 6' 9" it would be up to a couple of inches narrower than 'standard'.

 

I thought that 30 years ago they were built to nearer 7' ?

 

Maybe the tape measure was out

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Athy said:

You could be right - but wasn't there a case a couple of years ago in which a boatbuilder was fined for supplying a hull which was over 6'10" wide which was considered by a judge not to be fit for its purpose? So we may look at 6'10", or 2m08cm, as the limit of their width.

Working boats were built to 7'0" or even very slightly wider. Not sure about the boats of 30 years ago in general, but I suspect that 6'10" has been normal for many years.

Ah......

Do you measure a 'spot width' or the overall width (allowing for the Liverpudlian banana shaped boats)

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Athy said:

 

Working boats were built to 7'0" or even very slightly wider. Not sure about the boats of 30 years ago in general, but I suspect that 6'10" has been normal for many years.

 

7ft 1/2in IIRC.

 

6ft 10in was adopted in response to BW failing to maintain locks wide enough for 7ft 1/2in IIRC. 

 

If enough people keep saying 6ft 10in is the standard lock width, CRT will adopt this as the maximum and then builders will have to reduce to 6ft 7in.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Athy said:

You could be right - but wasn't there a case a couple of years ago in which a boatbuilder was fined for supplying a hull which was over 6'10" wide which was considered by a judge not to be fit for its purpose? So we may look at 6'10", or 2m08cm, as the limit of their width.

Working boats were built to 7'0" or even very slightly wider. Not sure about the boats of 30 years ago in general, but I suspect that 6'10" has been normal for many years.

I seem to recall it may have been this boat.

article-1034353-01EA656700000578-107_468x628.jpgarticle-1034353-01EA663F00000578-923_468x657.jpg.758abcb925c440c526581f73f8d8a14a.jpg

Edited by Ray T
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Oh on reflection, maybe builders adopted 6ft 10in so customers could cruise into narrow locks with side fenders down....

This is not aided by the stupid signs I saw at napton flight a couple of days ago where a large notice proudly displays by CART that the next lock is slightly narrower than the others and they err advise boaters to lift fenders!! Boaters should never have the stupid things down in the first place but such signs make poor boaters or novices look as though they are doing the right thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

This is not aided by the stupid signs I saw at napton flight a couple of days ago where a large notice proudly displays by CART that the next lock is slightly narrower than the others and they err advise boaters to lift fenders!! Boaters should never have the stupid things down in the first place but such signs make poor boaters or novices look as though they are doing the right thing.

If you look at any of the canal mags on the front cover there is nearly always a photo of a boat with the fenders down, often with a rope on the tiller and the steerer standing beside the tiller.

DSCN3425small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite a nice looking thing isn't it but shame there are no pictures out of the water, "V hull" covers a multitude of possibilities.  Lots of narrowboats over the years have been built with double chined hulls not just Springers.   For example Foxboats (those with the distinctive bow), Arcrite, Hancock & Lane, Pickwell & Arnold have all offered this hull shape and of course all Sea Otters are V shaped. 

 

The main disadvantage in a narrowboat is the supposed lack of floor space and some Springers were very compromised in this respect.  But I reckon even a modest V shape improves the handling and in today's world of poorly dredged canals there's a big advantage to be gained in access to shallow mooring spots where a slab sided boat wouldn't be able to fit.   A significant V shape obviously makes the boat roll a bit more, I like it but it would put off a lot of narrowboat buyers.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ray T said:

I seem to recall it may have been this boat.

article-1034353-01EA656700000578-107_468x628.jpgarticle-1034353-01EA663F00000578-923_468x657.jpg.758abcb925c440c526581f73f8d8a14a.jpg

No, I don't think so.  I don't think the incident pictured here was in any way attributed to the width of the boat, (which was I think quite an old one at the time that incident occurred).  I believe BW claimed the boat has "not been operated correctly" (!)

The legal case about an "over width" boat related to a Liverpool Boats built shell failing to get through Hurleston, though it was the fitter out that sold the boat that was taken to court, not Liverpool Boats, I believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

If you look at any of the canal mags on the front cover there is nearly always a photo of a boat with the fenders down, often with a rope on the tiller and the steerer standing beside the tiller.

DSCN3425small.jpg

That's a good photo showing how and when fenders should be displayed ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

No, I don't think so.  I don't think the incident pictured here was in any way attributed to the width of the boat, (which was I think quite an old one at the time that incident occurred).  I believe BW claimed the boat has "not been operated correctly" (!)

 

So do we know the story with this incident? It certainly looks as though the boat is too wide for the lock. 

 

Was it perhaps a case of the boater trying to transit the particularly narrow lock with a side fender down? There's no obvious evidence of side fenders in the photos and it really does look as though the hull is too wide for the lock to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

If you look at any of the canal mags on the front cover there is nearly always a photo of a boat with the fenders down, often with a rope on the tiller and the steerer standing beside the tiller.

DSCN3425small.jpg

Is that really a cover picture from a canal magazine ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

No, I don't think so.  I don't think the incident pictured here was in any way attributed to the width of the boat, (which was I think quite an old one at the time that incident occurred).  I believe BW claimed the boat has "not been operated correctly" (!)

The legal case about an "over width" boat related to a Liverpool Boats built shell failing to get through Hurleston, though it was the fitter out that sold the boat that was taken to court, not Liverpool Boats, I believe.

 

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So do we know the story with this incident? It certainly looks as though the boat is too wide for the lock. 

 

Was it perhaps a case of the boater trying to transit the particularly narrow lock with a side fender down? There's no obvious evidence of side fenders in the photos and it really does look as though the hull is too wide for the lock to me. 


Well we know quite a lot about the incident that Ray posted pictures of.

It is from 10 years ago at Offerton locks on the W&B, and the 70 foot boat "Abigail" was in the charge of it's owner and Ray Bowern of Streethay Wharf , so we know we are not talking about amateurs.

The best explanation seems to be that it is an old Les Allen boat, built "Birmingham square", so as wide across the baseplate as it is at the top of the hull, and that this in some way contributed to it hanging on some unidentified projection as the lock emptied rapidly, (and if you know the W&B, those really are very fast emptying locks with very little reaction time possible if something goes wrong).

It was suggested in several places that the overhanging wearing edge of the baseplate was excessively large - maybe as much as an inch.  Not the sort of hazard one might expect with a Les Allen shell, but it will not have helped.

IIRC, BW tried to blame it on "inappropriate operation of the lock", but it seems highly likely to me the lock will have had some issue of some kind of projection to cause the hang, and hard to see how it was the experienced boaters at fault.  What I couldn't understand was why, before they got a 60 tonne crane on the job, they could not work out exactly what it was hung on.  Can't have been hard, surely?
 


http://www.grannybuttons.com/granny_buttons/2008/07/departing-stree.html

Edited by alan_fincher
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

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.