We settled on the red deal harmoniously. First we got four planks of 11-in. deal 12 ft. long and 11⁄2 in. thick. I had it of this thickness to ensure comparative immunity from splitting when the sides should be nailed on, for these were to form the floor or bottom of our punt. When planed on both sides, this thickness was of course reduced. The edges of the planks were ‘shot,’ and made to fit as for a glue joint. After being cramped together they were kept in position by nailing on transverse pieces 1 in. thick and 4 in. wide, these transverse pieces not reaching quite to the whole width of the floor. This, the floor, we narrowed, from the centre towards the ends, until the result was something like a gigantic ‘sole’ with its head and tail cut off square. This raft was our bottom or floor, four planks wide in the middle, and three planks wide at each end.
I wanted my boat to have not exactly a flat bottom, but one that should rise, or ‘spring,’ some two inches fore and aft. This gives a punt more buoyancy in rowing, and also enables it to be run aground easily, and to be pushed off without ‘sucking.’ A perfectly flat-bottomed punt sticks or clings to a shallow, muddy shore. If it is slightly curved, it is shoved off without any difficulty. The question was how to curve it.
We built our punt in a barn, with crossbeams overhead. First I got two trestles, rather narrower than the ends of the bottom, and rested its ends upon them, there being some three or four inches to spare between the trestles and the ends of the bottom. It stood quite flat and stiff. You could not bend it with any pressure from the hand. I then measured the distance between its surface and a beam under which its centre stood at right angles, and found it to be exactly 11 ft. I next cut a length off a young fir-tree, which lay by our saw-pit, 11 ft. 2 in. in length, and requested our carpenter to set it upright on the middle of the punt floor, under the beam. Of course he could not. It was 2 in. too long. Then I got him and his assistant to stand on the bottom of the punt, whose ends just rested on the trestles, with three or four inches to spare, and to see if the tree would not then stand under the beam. It did easily. Then he and his assistant stepped off, and, lo! the punt floor, in trying to recover its flatness, was rigidly fixed, with a ‘spring’ or curve, fore and aft, of 2 in.
The fabric, so far, was steadied for further operations. Then I took two clean 9-in. planks, 1 in. thick, planed on both sides, and, keeping them duly apart with boards set edgewise the width of the punt bottom, nailed them to the sides. They bent quite easily, without any assistance from heat, and at once we had the two sides of our punt. I had these sides considerably longer than the bottom, in order that the punt might have projecting ends, and so be more easily stepped into from the shore when run up ‘end on.’ Then we got two pieces of wide elm plank for the two ends of our punt. These were the whole width of the end of the floor, and sloped out fore and aft. To these we nailed the ends of our sides, and the result was at once a very shipshape punt, but without any knees or thwarts. These we put in afterwards, as is usual in boat-building.
But the sides, though high enough to make a punt capable of carrying a considerable load, were too low to carry rowlocks unless the rower sat on the bottom of the boat. Thus we put on one other plank on each side 9 in. deep and 1 in. thick. It overlapped the other 2 in., and was long enough to continue the projection of the ends. It fitted very closely. We nailed these two side planks on with long copper nails, and put in other pieces of elm for the ends. Outside the top of these second planks we also nailed a strip 2 in. deep and 1 in. thick. This made the gunwale of the punt nearly 2 in. wide, and capable of receiving thowls, or pins.
The seats, or thwarts, we rested on the top of the lower side planks. This gave a seat of about 7 in. high for the rower, and sufficient height for the bed of the rowlock above the level of the rower’s seat, namely 7 in., which is about the usual rule. We strengthened the thwarts with oak knees against the upper side planks. This, moreover, gave great rigidity to the whole fabric of the punt. We also used oak knees or angles, called, in boat-building language, ‘hooks,’ at the four corners of the gunwale, nailing them in horizontally, and thus much tightening the punt at each corner.
The disposition of the thwarts in such a boat is matter of much importance. They should be at the proper distance from the rowlocks, and the rower should not take up too much of the available space in the punt. We arranged ours thus, and they answered admirably. The floor, be it remembered, was 12 ft. long. We ‘middled’ this, and set the centres of the two thwarts 18 in. from this line. This gave 3 ft. as the distance between the centres of the two thwarts, and their position in the boat was such that one rower by himself sat just where his weight should be; so did two, and both sat well away from any ‘sitter’ in the end of the boat. The distance of 3 ft. between the centre of the thwarts enables the rowlocks to be correctly placed. They should come exactly halfway between the thwarts. By having three rowlocks on each side, equidistant, the rower or rowers had only to turn round and row in the opposite direction, the boat having stem and stern alike. This is convenient under some circumstances, as when there is not room to pull the boat itself round. The thwarts themselves should be 9 in. wide, and two boards of the same width at each end, resting on the top of the lower side planks, make sufficient accommodation for sitters, who, by the arrangement of thwarts and rowlocks which I have described, are well out of reach of the rower’s legs in a punt of the size we made. Altogether the result was excellent. The boat rowed with much lightness and ease, and would carry four or five adults. It was, moreover, very stiff in the water. There was no fear of it turning over when rowers shifted places. It ran far up on shore, so that ladies could step in and out dry-shod.
I should say that we made the ends project about 18 in. fore and aft, while the floor of the punt was 12 ft. long. Thus our length over all was 15 ft. If I built another I think I should make each of the ends project 2 ft., and curve the gunwale a little, giving it a drop of an inch or two in the middle. This gives an agreeable curve, and takes off the severe straightness of the upper line, which I must confess rather marred the ‘elegance’ of our punt as she lay on the water. A very little curve or wave-line produces the desired effect.
The cost of building our punt was not very much. I have before me the bill of the carpenter for wood, time, and some of the nails. It is £6 5s., and he was longer over it than he would have been had it not been his first attempt. Besides this, I had to buy the rest of the nails. Ours were mostly zinc, but on another occasion I should use only copper. The additional expenses were the oak knees for strengthening the boat, and the varnish with which we ‘dressed’ her. We used no paint, and only two or three places in the seams outside were ‘caulked’ with a little oakum.
I would advise the builder of such a punt, when not able to do the work himself, to employ an intelligent carpenter who makes his joints close. The whole cost, all expenses included, was between £7 and £8—the larger proportion being for labour, which sharp boys might themselves supply—and the fabric certainly seems as if it would last well. It has now passed its second year of service, and is as tight as a bottle, though it has been somewhat roughly used. For such a punt I should have had to pay at a boat-builders some £15, and I do not see why one built as I have advised should not be as strong and serviceable as any could be. The only point is that I would advise copper rivets, and not zinc, to be used throughout.