35' cat concept for the inside passage.

Cats for serious live-aboard in my view need to be about 40 ft or more... Less than that is verging on spartan or day-tripper work... As one gets bigger prices just go exponential...

 

yerp and being the cheap bastad I am I'm looking for ways to navigate those costs as best I can.

I think your right about 40' being the magic number, I was checking public moorings in Ketchikan and there's a limit on moorings of 40' on the north end of town ( cheap end ) with the max allowable at 65' but they don't specify if you have to be at the dock or not. My guess is you do cause of the swing involved and the spacing between moorings. I'd want a mooring and I'm not sure I can keep it down to 40' so I might be back to the idea of buying that land off the back side of Bull Island and dropping a mooring there if they let me and an anchor if not. I gotta check the depth again but its looks really well protected back there. The north end of town is about 8 miles up from Ketch itself and has no amenities, Bull Island is up the lead about 17 miles and I could build a dock if I wanted, But I'd have to drop a lot of trees to make much use of the land.

 

In the end I prefer monohulls. An old Tug makes a nice liveabord cruiser. Port captains and Seaman respect real boats, plus they fit comfortably into commercial ports alongside fishing boats . Yachts never recieve a warm welcome and are always viewed as floating hundred dollar bills.

 

I'm with Michael on that one, too. For serious amenities in a shorter LOA, a monohull is going to be the way to go. 35' cats (I owned one) are great, but they don't support the kind of amenities we are talking about having here.

 

No doubt that a cat is roomy, seaworthy, efficient ......and expensive to build !!

 

I'm for mono hulls too but maintaining an old tug is probably very expensive. When comparing disp boats for efficiency displacement is the biggest variable and old tugs have lots and lots of that. Hull maintenance is'nt small potatoes either.

 

Im sure you are correct. Old Tugs will need steel and are Not the most efficient boats for cruising . Tugs simply have class. Difficult to put a value on class.

 

I really like the older tugs and I'll have to do an exploratory in that direction eventually. The issues already mentioned are, I think going to be key. maintenance costs on such a deep displacement hull, and efficiency. That and the deck house is generally pretty small on a tug and changing that kinda wrecks the entire character of the vessel.

 

The people who mess around with tugs are a special breed.

Additional accomodations could be added...plent of deck space.

What I really like about tugs is the low freeboard. Very pleasant to use and live on a boat with low freeboard.

 

wouldn't you end up wet a lot of the time

 

Yes and no. But Low free board makes handling a boat in close quarters easy. This is a prime consideration for an inland cruiser operated by two people. You wouldnt put to sea in a small tug. Coastal cruises and protected water. what the tug was intended for.

 

Some nice looking ones around...

http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/rds/boa/2752957256.html

 

Tugs make almost no sense as a liveaboard cruiser....most tugs have a huge hull, huge fuel tanks, huge engine, tiny pilothouse, no accommodation.....

Here's a 70' with minimal accommodation.....http://www.pacificboatbrokers.com/details.asp?File_Number=WW3590

Palomar is much roomier, she's only 85'......http://www.pacificboatbrokers.com/details.asp?File_Number=WW3160

 

This boat has better (and more) accommodation than a typical 60' tug.....and it will cost far less to tie up.......

http://pacificmarine.org/blog/donated-boats-for-sale/1966-grand-banks-sedan-32-trawler-2/

 

Damn Tad thats a nice boat. I'm positive I couldn't build it for what they are asking. Although that Ford diesel is a little spooky.

still looking and still plugging away at saving.

B