Trad boat and old engines.

[Ray T]

In her book, Care on the Cut, Lorna York records the death by asphyxiation of one of Mrs Beechy's girls:

 

"The use of fore cabins as places to sleep came to the fore front of towpath news in April 1941 when Mrs Beechy found her 13 year old daughter Susan Agnes dead, her other daughter Clara unconscious and the family dog dead in the fore-cabin of Gifford, a Thomas Clayton (Oldbury) Ltd. boat. Sisters Agnes and Clara had been seen the night before on the towpath laughing and full of life by a number of boaters. The Beechy's younger sons usually slept in the fore-cabin, but because the family were due to move off early the next morning, the boys slept with their parents in the back cabin. it was a cold night so the stove was on and the slide shut.

 

At the inquest it was announced Susan Agnes died from asphyxiation due to carbon monoxide poisoning from the fore-cabin stove, her younger sister Clara survived. After the tragedy the family removed the for-cabin stove and never used it again as a dwelling."

Edited July 8, 2016 by Ray T

[pete harrison]

Yes thats the one!

Its was only fitted for a very brief time from when was first build.

WORCESTER was built in 1912, and was fitted with a 44hp Kromhout petrol / paraffin semi-diesel engine. This engine was replaced in 1929 with the Bolinder 30hp semi-diesel that is still fitted now.

 

Personally I do not think 17 years is 'a very brief time', I suspect it was more likely worn out as these tugs were kept very busy

[Chertsey]

I'm more inclined to worry about the inhalation of diesel fumes that *are* being properly vented while I'm steering.

 

The fumes in the cases RayT and BillyBob refer to are surely from the stove - and there are plenty of contemporary cases of that.

[bargemast]

WORCESTER was built in 1912, and was fitted with a 44hp Kromhout petrol / paraffin semi-diesel engine. This engine was replaced in 1929 with the Bolinder 30hp semi-diesel that is still fitted now.

 

Personally I do not think 17 years is 'a very brief time', I suspect it was more likely worn out as these tugs were kept very busy

 

Based on your information Pete, the engine could very well have been worn out, if as you said : "They were kept very busy".

 

I made an hypothetical calculation of the amount of hours the engine could have done in these 17 years.

 

Say these tugs worked 300 days of the year, and only 8 hours per day (surely more) and that for 17 years you end up with a respectable number of hours

 

300 x 8 x 17 = 40.800 hours already but it could have been a lot more of course, so no wonder there was smoke of one of these old 2 stroke semi-diesels.

 

Peter.

[baz gimson]

In a tank, the crew are inside a fairly well sealed cabin, very close to the engine.

 

 

 

in a WW 1 tank no...in a WW 2 or post war tank, no...read my previous post for the facts of this common myth.

[Jrtm]

WORCESTER was built in 1912, and was fitted with a 44hp Kromhout petrol / paraffin semi-diesel engine. This engine was replaced in 1929 with the Bolinder 30hp semi-diesel that is still fitted now.

 

Personally I do not think 17 years is 'a very brief time', I suspect it was more likely worn out as these tugs were kept very busy

Yes but im sure i read somewhere cant remember off top of my head that it was replaced due to fumes in tunnels. I cant remember where it was ill have to have a hunt threw all my books and info i have about it. You maybe right it may have been worn out and the causing problems but im sure it was down to one of her skippers feeling ill from fumes. But 17 years for a engine isnt much reason to replace it there are other engine still out there that have done more work than that engine and not been fully replaced rebuilt maybe.

 

But yes my most thing is from stoves ect as metioned about gifford

[RLWP]

Maybe so, but not a 1912 semi diesel. This is pretty early for a boat engine, so the technology was quite experimental and unreliable. 17 years is very impressive for such an early engine

 

Richard

[Jrtm]

Most e types bolinders lasted a few years longer. Some the e types in the m boats even longer.

Im just saying im sure i read that the fumes were why it was swapped it may not have been true and was replaced due to worn out it may have been a mix of both i dont fully know and im sure even the most enthusiastic person about WORCESTER may not even know the real reason.

Back to topic i can only really see tunnels and stoves causing problems with fumes on boats as there not easly sealed like a tank could be and could see even with air vents a tank could cause problems with fumes i know some cars with exhaust and engine problems can and have made people ill due to fumes

[Laurence Hogg]

Most e types bolinders lasted a few years longer. Some the e types in the m boats even longer.

Im just saying im sure i read that the fumes were why it was swapped it may not have been true and was replaced due to worn out it may have been a mix of both i dont fully know and im sure even the most enthusiastic person about WORCESTER may not even know the real reason.

Back to topic i can only really see tunnels and stoves causing problems with fumes on boats as there not easly sealed like a tank could be and could see even with air vents a tank could cause problems with fumes i know some cars with exhaust and engine problems can and have made people ill due to fumes

 

If fumes were such a problem back in working boat days the cemeteries up and down the cut would be full of gassed and asphyxiated boatmen and women, which of course they are not. People did use common sense in planning the journey in those days to minimise the output.

[pete harrison]

Maybe so, but not a 1912 semi diesel. This is pretty early for a boat engine, so the technology was quite experimental and unreliable. 17 years is very impressive for such an early engine

 

Richard

 

Most e types bolinders lasted a few years longer. Some the e types in the m boats even longer.

Im just saying im sure i read that the fumes were why it was swapped it may not have been true and was replaced due to worn out it may have been a mix of both i dont fully know and im sure even the most enthusiastic person about WORCESTER may not even know the real reason.

I have no real interest in WORCESTER but I can apply common sense, and I am with Richard on this.

 

There is a technical difference regarding the Kromhout compared to a Bolinder that I think you are overlooking (I hope Richard can confirm this). The Kromhout ran on Petrol / Paraffin of which both are solvents, whereas the Bolinder ran on Diesel which is an Oil - solvents being aggressive and Oil be much less so. This is my understanding why a car with a petrol engine is good for about 100000 miles but a diesel is good for considerable more - providing they are maintained properly of course

[X Alan W]

I have no knowledge of the Kromhaut, was it a 2stroke & if it was did it have a total loss oiling system, the reason I bring this up is that the 'Seffle' I had in 'Lily' was total loss lube system, it had a tap on the crankcase + a pipe to a catch tank The engine was normally run with the tap open, if the tap was closed & oil was allowed to collect in the crankcase after an hour or so of running the amount of fumes etc in the engine 'ole' was increased by a large amount as the crankcase induction contained an amount of lube oil rather than being more or less oil free .If this motor was similar possibly the oil in the crankcase was at a high level Although I would not think it would amount to illness or death, unless as stated it ran full time on Petrol/ Paraffin

Edited July 9, 2016 by X Alan W

[Derek R.]

Kromhout made many different types, and built Gardner's under licence (AFAIK). You will spot some at their museum, as well as a hot bulb single at 3:30secs:

 

[Jacq]

I have no knowledge of the Kromhaut, was it a 2stroke & if it was did it have a total loss oiling system, the reason I bring this up is that the 'Seffle' I had in 'Lily' was total loss lube system, it had a tap on the crankcase + a pipe to a catch tank The engine was normally run with the tap open, if the tap was closed & oil was allowed to collect in the crankcase after an hour or so of running the amount of fumes etc in the engine 'ole' was increased by a large amount as the crankcase induction contained an amount of lube oil rather than being more or less oil free .If this motor was similar possibly the oil in the crankcase was at a high level Although I would not think it would amount to illness or death, unless as stated it ran full time on Petrol/ Paraffin

The Kromhout I had was a total loss oil system (M1) The engine room always smelt of diesel/fumes. Going through a tunnel near Kings Norton ? it was particularly heavy on the lungs.