Jump to content

Narrowboats and wide boats rediscovered at Harefield - the facts


Featured Posts

Does that make Raymond a 'fence'? (Mind the barbs . . ) :lol:

No but if you have a look down Raymond's front hatch, at it's bow knees, and then walk up the road and compare Lucy's knees you will see the difference between a poor replication and a Nurser.

 

 

This is a very interesting point. As I remember it is was the breaking up of Symbol that spurred the restoration of Saturn on - though I could be wrong.

 

It seems to be a common theme in conservation, it takes the destruction of something to spur people on. The Firestone factory is a good example.

Actually the breaking up of Symbol was carried out after the Association had secured Saturn and reduced it to a pile of ironwork and wood.

 

Saturn was a very good candidate for a "rolling restoration" which could have travelled about, raising funds for the rebuild of a second fly boat, Symbol, which was already reducing itself to its component parts.

 

In much the same way as the Albion Trust has resisted attempts to rebuild the remaining Wherries, the destruction of Symbol secured Saturn's place as "The last Shropshire Union Flyboat in existence".

 

Being the last of your kind is always a better money spinner than being one of two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So which one is Kingsdown? That was at Denham and then out on the bank at Cassio for a while. It was subject to a dispute and sold. Now at Hatherton.

But there are some who think it was Kildare that became Birchills! Kildare suffered serious bomb demage which is why the present Kildare with its riveted plate on the stern is assumed to be one and the same. Others believe that the stern damage was far more extensive and therefore it was used as the bows of a tug.

 

As many of these B&K boats ended up on the BCN where boat names were largely irrelevant I don't think we'll ever know their true identities.

 

Paul

 

Actually the breaking up of Symbol was carried out after the Association had secured Saturn and reduced it to a pile of ironwork and wood.

 

Saturn was a very good candidate for a "rolling restoration" which could have travelled about, raising funds for the rebuild of a second fly boat, Symbol, which was already reducing itself to its component parts.

 

And the fate of Symbol further illustrates Steve King's point. Don't get a wooden boat out of the water for preservation unless you have the money and the infrastructure already in place to proceed the restoration (and its care and use afterwards) or it will simply fall to bits and be lost forever.

 

Paul

Edited by Paul H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the fate of Symbol further illustrates Steve King's point. Don't get a wooden boat out of the water for preservation unless you have the money and the infrastructure already in place to proceed the restoration (and its care and use afterwards) or it will simply fall to bits and be lost forever.

But, when Saturn was dismantled to its component parts, why was it any different to Symbol, doing the job on its own, in dry dock, all those years.

 

By the time they finished dismantling Saturn it was no more or less viable than Symbol was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been a lot of comments on restored boats here. Perhaps a little more thought is needed as to exactly what it is hoped to be achieved by conservation or restoration. Twelve years ago I wrote a report for the museum at Goole regarding the conservation/restoration of the tug Wheldale. The introduction included the following:

 

When preserving an industrial object, there are three main possibilities which should be considered. The adoption of one of these criteria will then dictate the methods to be used in preservation.

1: To conserve the object as an example of its type. Today, this would mean keeping the object in its ‘as worked’ condition, just as it had finished working. Previously the object may have been returned to its original, ‘as built’ condition.

2: To maintain the object, using traditional materials and methods, in order to preserve and record the traditional skills used in maintenance and operation, as well as preserving the object itself in a condition similar to that when in use.

3: To maintain the object, using modern methods and materials, in such a way as to be able to operate the object regularly and safely, and thus to be able to reserve the traditional skills of operation.

 

From the start it is important to decide what is to be achieved by conservation or restoration. Do you want to keep the boat as an example of a particular type at the time it was removed from service, or do you want to preserve the skills and traditions which are associated with the boat. Whatever you do, recording should be carried out of all work affecting the boat if conservation or restoration are to be achieved 'professionally', and this is the one area where museums tend to be better than individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Laurence Hogg: May I suggest that instead of restoring the GJ/GU wide boat hull, why not build a new one? It will be a much more manageable long-term project and just the same as spending years and years rebuilding it to what would be to all purposes a completely new vessel. Look at the railways, the lack of certain iconic steam engines in preservation hasnt stopped rail enthusiasts from building new ones, examples are those splendid Garratts on the WHR. One of the most inspiring projects ever was the Tornado project which oversaw the building of a brand new LNER Peppercorn A1 locomotive. What do you think?

 

That is a fantastic idea! But we have no dimensions or layout to work from which is why examining an existing complete boat is important, Harefield has the only ones extant as far as we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be put off. At the very least these boats need to be properly recorded.

I think this is the most important point.

 

There are, for example, no more wooden Royalty buttys left (especially if the boat rumoured to be Adelaide is, in fact, just another Town Class) so taking measurements, drawing templates or even recovery, partial or complete, of one of the Harefield boats, would be an achievement, even if rebuilding a complete boat is impossible or impractical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Laurence Hogg: May I suggest that instead of restoring the GJ/GU wide boat hull, why not build a new one? It will be a much more manageable long-term project and just the same as spending years and years rebuilding it to what would be to all purposes a completely new vessel. Look at the railways, the lack of certain iconic steam engines in preservation hasnt stopped rail enthusiasts from building new ones, examples are those splendid Garratts on the WHR. One of the most inspiring projects ever was the Tornado project which oversaw the building of a brand new LNER Peppercorn A1 locomotive. What do you think?

 

 

That is a fantastic idea! But we have no dimensions or layout to work from which is why examining an existing complete boat is important, Harefield has the only ones extant as far as we know.

 

And that is precisely what this boat is at Harefield for! Evaluate its dimensions and build a new one...

 

I'm going off the point here, however I think people/organisations who restore boats (& trains, buses, fire engines, planes etc) should be contractually obligated to see a project through to its completion. It is too easy to jump on the restoration bandwagon and it is not something to be taken lightly. I expect some will rubbish this idea but there are too many half done/abandoned job lots on our canals and railways and it is probably time that the concept of restoration was taken to a new level.

 

I remember a time when many people were buying up RT's, RTLs and RTW's, and sooner or later these were given up. One particular dealer bought up a lot of these rejects and tried very hard to find new homes for them, as events show some of these buses eventually ended up in different places around the world, some on Sentosa Island. He told me that he much preferred to find people who were really dedicated to restoring and maintaining these ex-LT vehicles, but there were very few people who showed the determination and the will, and the only reality was to sell them off for business/pleasure use rather than see them scrapped. I know this particular man actually had a slant towards making a profit but that is how he started out, rescuing other people's unwanted toys.

 

I think this is the most important point.

 

There are, for example, no more wooden Royalty buttys left (especially if the boat rumoured to be Adelaide is, in fact, just another Town Class) so taking measurements, drawing templates or even recovery, partial or complete, of one of the Harefield boats, would be an achievement, even if rebuilding a complete boat is impossible or impractical.

 

I agree on what Carl says. Recording is essential for history. Restoration is the next step, if it can reasonably be done.

Edited by fender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is the most important point.

 

There are, for example, no more wooden Royalty buttys left (especially if the boat rumoured to be Adelaide is, in fact, just another Town Class) so taking measurements, drawing templates or even recovery, partial or complete, of one of the Harefield boats, would be an achievement, even if rebuilding a complete boat is impossible or impractical.

 

Sadly Adelaide is in the pit together with Albert and Alexandra. I am informed that evidence exists of the sale of Anne to a private individual from BW records. The "Royalty" we are talking about is most likey to be Anne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

should be contractually obligated to see a project through to its completion.

 

A contact is worthess when the organisation hasn't got the money to fulfil it. All that happens then is they go bust and the "insert appropriate item" is in an even more perilous situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A contact is worthess when the organisation hasn't got the money to fulfil it. All that happens then is they go bust and the "insert appropriate item" is in an even more perilous situation.

 

 

You know what I mean. If people cant do a job - then dont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what I mean. If people cant do a job - then dont.

 

That makes the assumption that all eventualities can be forseen and mitigated against. It is quite possible that a person or orgainsation may be able to do the job when it is first started but due to any number of reasons are not able to complete it.

 

I agree with your general principle that it is not a good idea to bit off more than you can chew but, when a small group of, clearly totally insane but devoted, steam train nuts decided it would be fun to build a brand new fully working steam loco - I think most people, possibly/probably even those involved in the project, would have said they had an impossible job that couldn't be done. Didn't stop them doing it though - and good on them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been interesting reading the posts - many of which echoed my and others thoughts / concerns whilst investigating Harefield and contemplating "going live". The final decision was to make the finds public (here and elsewhere) in order to ascertain the level of interest / skill / resource, then to look to complete a proper (professional if possible) survey of the site. Whilst it's good to contimplate where a Josher or two could be "saved", as has been stated, the wideboats and Royalty Class especially are thought to be of greatest historical importance, and the proper recording of any remains of these craft should be a priority, if it were possible. For info, The National Trust at Dapdune Wharf on The Wey have 2 complete Wey Barges in their posession and are working with the Nautical Archeological Society to properly record the boat construction for historical purposes and provide a historical record and educational material for visitors.

 

Some have mentioned the difficulties The Waterways Trust face and Railway Preservation Groups as something to draw parallels from. My thoughts are that BW generally, as with many companies and organisations are in "challenging" times and it shouldn't be assumed they could or would want to be overly involved. With all due respect, I'd doubt if TWT or the Waterways Museums contribute much to offset the maintenance of the UK canal system (that is not to say they are not valued), but the "number crunchers" somewhere, I'm sure will be looking at the cost of operating, and the restoration work required to the boats already in their posession. As a Southerner, the site at Ellesmere Port is not easily accessible by road, rail or canal, and I fear the number of volunteers at Ellesmere may be limited by it's location and proximity to the heart of the canal network. There are a number of wooden historic Narrowboats in private possession where the owners are valiantly trying to keep them afloat with limited funds and resources - something that others, who maybe cash rich and time poor, couldn't contemplate taking on. So, my thoughts on moving forward (if this ever became an option) have been based around the realisation that the current / traditional approach isn't sustainable.

 

Individuals interested in Railway History form "Preservation Societies", presumably because individual ownership of a Pannier Tank, or Goods Shed isn't practical - but as a "Group" they do have the ability to achieve collectively. Preservation Societies acquire / restore as a "Group", which allows them to fundraise and purchase collectively. Historic Narrowboats are much more "available" for private ownership, and so "Preservation Societies", in the main haven't been the common route to restoring any quanitity of boats (accepting the "Saturn" project etc). Preservation of historic narrowboats have become all about all about "individuals" and "ownership" - we polish the brass bands on our own boats proudly, as the bulldozer's go in and destroy another canalside artifact, making the "canalscape" even more sterile. For info, I have already made contact with a Railway Preservation Society to sound them out. I outlined the find in general terms and they expressed an interest in becoming involved.

 

I think the comments from Pluto, Carlt and Speedwheel especially have been very constructive. Without wanting to go "Off Topic" too much, should there be some discussion on whether a new approach to maintaining and preserving our waterway heritage is possible? With the Harefield Josher's in my mind, would an FMC Preservation Society be viable (for example)? FMC motors are commonly well restored in private ownership, butties / horseboats not. Skills with rivetting and wooden hull restoration are limited, but a preservation society could become expert in a particular boat type, pool from group resources, manufacture limited runs of hard-to-find components , and have the capacity to maintain "member's" craft as well as the "group" craft.

 

Whether any of the above is viable or not regards Harefield, would depend on largely on interest. As has been stated already, if there is to be progression following a site survey, an idea of the form and structure this may take needs to be established. This, I think, is worthy of further positive discussion.

 

PS: if anyone is thinking of going to Harefield, then don't bother. Other than the wideboat pictured in Narrowboat / WWW, there's absolutely nothing to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the comments from Pluto, Carlt and Speedwheel especially have been very constructive. Without wanting to go "Off Topic" too much, should there be some discussion on whether a new approach to maintaining and preserving our waterway heritage is possible?

Yes, BW could lease a historic boatyard, to a preservation trust, at a peppercorn rent which could be run in a similar way to a railway preservation trust...

 

...a museum, guided tours round the working boatyard, trips on restored boats and Rosie and Jim in the shop (if we must).

 

Taylors springs to mind as the perfect spot. Have they built flats on it yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, BW could lease a historic boatyard, to a preservation trust, at a peppercorn rent which could be run in a similar way to a railway preservation trust...

 

...a museum, guided tours round the working boatyard, trips on restored boats and Rosie and Jim in the shop (if we must).

 

Taylors springs to mind as the perfect spot. Have they built flats on it yet?

 

I think something like that is long overdue.I have often thought about being able to perhaps take on a historic narrowboat but it is then how to improve its condition and how to maintain it that becomes an issue,the is nowhere to maintain or learn how to do so.Would the boatyard at the Blackcuntry museum be a possibility? No access to wide beam boats i guess would be a problem with somewhere in that location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a reminder of the original post on this long thread:

 

Following a Sunday afternoon walk Mark Pullinger chanced upon a wide boat in a country park, then as the scene unfolded more boats were found.

 

The boats lying sunk and or buried at Harefield are a time capsule awaiting proper exploration, conservation and recording. Some of the craft will be salvageable and may return to the inland waterways. Others will need recording for future reference, as they may not be in a recoverable condition.

 

The site contains the remains of in excess of 50 boats in theory, some aerial evidence could indicate even more, however some may have been removed over the years. The site is not connected to the Grand Union canal, it is landlocked.

 

The waters are fished by the Harrow Angling club and the site is part of Colne Valley country park contained within the borough of Hillingdon.

 

We would ask, you to not interfere with any of the remains as it is our overall intention to alert National public awareness to this site in the hope that professional recovery and examination will be forthcoming. We have done as much research as time has permitted and are very grateful to certain key enthusiasts who have shared information and also to the Waterways Trust for assisting with this effort.

 

To answer the most obvious question on everyones mind - what is there?

 

The following craft are identifiable and their probable / definite locations are known, this is derived from written BTC evidence, photos and examination of the site:

 

Fellows, Morton & Clayton iron horse boats:

Yardley

Upwood

Jersey

Penkridge

Amesbury

Tring (former Turkey)

Pretoria

Natal

Yeading

Keswick

Iver

 

Wooden horse boats:

Ida

Ena

Dee

Fay

Gladys

Dorset

 

Wooden Motor boat:

Erica

 

A H Taylor horse boat:

Daisy

 

L B Faulkner Horse boat:

Maude

 

Warickshore Canal carrying Co motor boat:

Calder

 

Thos Clayton (Paddington) wooden wide boats:

Jill

David

Trixie

Forget me not

Mavis

Edythe

 

The following are known to be on the site but location is not known:

 

Associated Canal Carriers (Royalty class)(GUCCCo) buttys:

Adelaide

Albert

Alexandra

Countess

 

Thos Clayton (Paddington) wide boats

Alberta

Rose of Tyburn

 

Warickshire Canal Carrying Co:

MB The King

 

Henry Boyer wide boats:

4 iron, 1 steel names not known.

 

BCN Joey

BCN !7928 open iron boat

 

Grand Union Canal Co

Composite Mud hopper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there are some who think it was Kildare that became Birchills! Kildare suffered serious bomb demage which is why the present Kildare with its riveted plate on the stern is assumed to be one and the same. Others believe that the stern damage was far more extensive and therefore it was used as the bows of a tug.

 

As many of these B&K boats ended up on the BCN where boat names were largely irrelevant I don't think we'll ever know their true identities.

 

Paul

 

 

 

And the fate of Symbol further illustrates Steve King's point. Don't get a wooden boat out of the water for preservation unless you have the money and the infrastructure already in place to proceed the restoration (and its care and use afterwards) or it will simply fall to bits and be lost forever.

 

Paul

 

The subject of KILDARE being "bomb damaged" has interested me for quite some time, and I personally think popular opinion is incorrect. There is no doubt that KILDARE was sunk at New Warwick Wharf, Birmingham on 01 November 1940 along with its motor ROBIN and another pair ROVER and GRACE. Photographs were taken by the Birmingham Evening Mail and have been reproduced in canal related publications ever since (such as Robert Wilson's 1975 booklet FMC). Although the boats look a real mess in the photographs the stern of KILDARE is very much intact, although submerged, and I am unable to connect the patch currently rivetted to the stern with the damage possible sustained by the bomb. If the bomb had caused KILDARE's stern to become damaged then I am sure the stern end of the wooden motor ROBIN (tied alongside) would have been destroyed, but again it is completely intact, although also sunk.

 

Ernest Thomas acquired several boats from F.M.C. Ltd., including 8 Braithwaite & Kirk iron boats. F.M.C. Ltd. records describe only 3 of the Braithwaite & Kirk boats as being "sunk by enemy action" and this does not include KILDARE. I understand "sunk by enemy action" to mean that the boat was no longer servicable and only good for some sort of conversion or scrap.

 

I have already said that KILDARE was bombed on 01 November 1940, but its sale to Ernest Thomas was not until August 1948 - meaning it saw several more years service with F.M.C. Ltd. after its bombing / sinking. This suggests that the patch on the stern of KILDARE was nothing to do with its bombing / sinking, or that KILDARE is not KILDARE.

 

All of the F.M.C. Ltd. Braithwaite & Kirk iron boats acquired by Ernest Thomas appear to have lost their identity whilst under his later ownership meaning that the survivors all have dubious identifications and the current names may not be correct.

 

My understanding of SATURN is that the old boat was dismantled to fully interpret its method of construction, the dismantled wood then being burnt. The new SATURN then being a completely new build but using ironwork from the original SATURN. Although I like the look of the new SATURN and I am sure it is a credible interpretation of a "Shropshire Union Fly Boat" I can't help feeling that the society formed to preserve these boats has actually been responsible for the demise of the last two examples to exist !

Edited by pete harrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding of SATURN is that the old boat was dismantled to fully interpret its method of construction, the dismantled wood then being burnt. The new SATURN then being a completely new build but using ironwork from the original SATURN. Although I like the look of the new SATURN and I am sure it is a credible interpretation of a "Shropshire Union Fly Boat" I can't help feeling that the society formed to preserve these boats has actually been responsible for the demise of the last two examples to exist !

I agree and I will never understand why Symbol's ironwork wasn't used for that purpose (assuming the rest of the boat was beyond rescue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think something like that is long overdue.I have often thought about being able to perhaps take on a historic narrowboat but it is then how to improve its condition and how to maintain it that becomes an issue,the is nowhere to maintain or learn how to do so.Would the boatyard at the Blackcuntry museum be a possibility? No access to wide beam boats i guess would be a problem with somewhere in that location.

 

The Waterways trust have established a working boatyard at Ellesmere Port which has got off to a good start with a proper programme of work (theres plenty of "customers" on site!). An examination of one of the wooden boats at Harefield showed what timber could be accessed to be in very solid order, the boat was one of the Uxbridge Joshers either Ena or Dee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than Erica, the only motor in the Harefield disposal listings is Calder (see previous post from Laurence). Other than Erica, the below are the only archive pics of a motorised boat at Harefield.

 

So is this Calder?

 

gallery_9599_546_61676.jpg

 

Is it a narrowboat (or over 7' beam)?

 

Is it a "motor" or steamer / tug?

 

Or is it Calder with the camera lens distorting the picture?

 

gallery_9599_546_167489.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Distinctive(?) 'T' stud in place of a 'dolly', and a bulge in the counter where the ramshead goes through.

Looking at the depth from the gunnel down to the top of the 'uxter' plate (where an uxter plate would be if it were steel - same in wood?) it appears very shallow. Compare that to the depth to the bottoms, suggests plenty of room for a big blade. Also compare the apparent width to that of the butty adjacent. Possibly a wide tug, formerly steam and latterly diesel?

The side forward gives the appearance of being stoved in - as in rammed.

 

What is that they are laying in - some kind of vessel? The water levels have clearly been higher, is this a period of drought? Or of continuous pumping - and for what reason?

 

Not heard of a Calder, what was that?

 

Derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's another possibility. That looks like the remains of a range - given its size, or what's left of it - rusting away on the floor, does kind of support the wide boat idea. Motorised wide horse boat?

SWAN was built Uxbridge, and diseaseled in 1913 - not a eight footer in width though, fate unknown to me, but I fancy unlikley. Sultan seems to have had a 'T' stud in that location - but narrow boat.

 

Derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a motorised butty, with a very short, shallow counter fitted?

 

The shallow liner plank and wooden knees don't look like very "motorish"

 

That was my thought, also the counter may well be deeper outside than inside :lol:

 

That would also help explain the T stud, it was probably carried over from horse boat guise to save the expense of a new dolly. Mabel (motorised horse boat) also carried/s one stud and one dolly on the counter.

 

Tim

Link to comment
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.