Jump to content

Horse drawn boats vs. Butties.oR,


angelasoldman

Featured Posts

Evening all,

 

A quick question, something that i have often wondered about :-

 

Is there a difference between a horse drawn Narrowboat and a 'Butty' ?

 

I have always assumed that the original design of a horse drawn boat followed through to the 'Butties' built after horse boating faded out.

 

Or, are there some subtle differences that i have never noticed ?

 

Can anyone help.

 

Cheers !

 

Max.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word butty is an old Irish word that means "friend, pal, to help along", with an American accent it became the international known word "buddy".

If two boats are helping each other through locks etc, they are buttying each other, therefore, horseboats used to butty each other and when steamer/motorboats came along they buttied other boats that were only horseboats if they were being pulled by a horse.

After the Diesel engine became the main means of propulsion many horseboats were converted into motorboats, by the 20's/30's boats were being built in pairs and in the 50's BTW converted some motorboats into butties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly. There were pairs with butty boats long before there were steamers or motors to pull them- two horse boats were often worked together behind a single horse or pair of donkeys.

 

 

Do we know when it became common practice to work two boats? i.e. an event (railway competition) or just a point in time. Or did it just evolve.

I have often wondered why locks were not built to take 2 boats at locations where plenty of water was running to wast. Or on the T&M when they duplicated the locks but were supposed to build wide locks to take boats from the Chester canal but did not. Water supply accepted. It must have been more efficient to work 2 boats in one go then boat after boat? or is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

example

1911 census Wyken Colliery Basin

Boat Richmond Owner Emanuel Smith

Master William Yarnall/Yarnell my grandfather

Wife Mary Jane grandmother

Rose aunt

George father

Albert uncle

Richmond built by Nursers Braunston 1909

moored along side

 

Avon

Ellen Humphries

Elizabeth Humphries half sisters of my grandmother

stated on census form working on canal boat under William Yarnall

 

one horse named Thomas family information

 

From my grandfathers log book of journey's taken between 1910-1918

April 1911 "Coal Wyken Colliery to Kingston 61 tons

 

Boat Registration "Hasty" 319 Brentford

Engine Petrol Parrafin

Owner Emanuel Smith

Master William Yarnall

 

From Canal and River Trust digital archive

Ref BW 192/3/2/2/12/1/69

Stoppage at Cowroast Locks

Shows my grandparents on motor Hasty butty Richmond

Hope this explains your question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do we know when it became common practice to work two boats? i.e. an event (railway competition) or just a point in time. Or did it just evolve.

I have often wondered why locks were not built to take 2 boats at locations where plenty of water was running to wast. Or on the T&M when they duplicated the locks but were supposed to build wide locks to take boats from the Chester canal but did not. Water supply accepted. It must have been more efficient to work 2 boats in one go then boat after boat? or is it?

Water supply was not an influence on lock size as it takes almost the same amount of water to pass two narrow boats boats carrying 25 tons each as it does for one wide boat carrying 50 tons. What was considered was cost, as it was around one third cheaper to build a narrow canal than a wide canal. By the time the canal proprietors realised that a wide canal would have been better for carrying the tonnage of goods which early canals attracted, it was too late as too many industries had been built alongside the canal to make widening it economic. You don't just have to widen the locks, but also the channel, even if pairs of narrow boats were involved, as happened to some extent on the GUC. Even though the GUC had little industry alongside it outside of London, it was still not widened to suit wide boats because of the cost, though there was considerable dredging/bank improvement to improve the channel for narrow boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word butty is an old Irish word that means "friend, pal, to help along", with an American accent it became the international known word "buddy".

If two boats are helping each other through locks etc, they are buttying each other, therefore, horseboats used to butty each other and when steamer/motorboats came along they buttied other boats that were only horseboats if they were being pulled by a horse.

After the Diesel engine became the main means of propulsion many horseboats were converted into motorboats, by the 20's/30's boats were being built in pairs and in the 50's BTW converted some motorboats into butties.

I always thought it might be because the boats 'butted' up against each other - common use then changed it to 'butty'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word butty is an old Irish word that means "friend, pal, to help along", with an American accent it became the international known word "buddy".

If two boats are helping each other through locks etc, they are buttying each other, therefore, horseboats used to butty each other and when steamer/motorboats came along they buttied other boats that were only horseboats if they were being pulled by a horse.

After the Diesel engine became the main means of propulsion many horseboats were converted into motorboats, by the 20's/30's boats were being built in pairs and in the 50's BTW converted some motorboats into butties.

Only two motor boats were converted into butty boats, "Dace" and "Dory" ex FMC. A ridiculous thing to do when at the same time they were dumping perfectly good FMC butty / horse boats in "Harefield pit" and sinking them just off the GU main line, to this day 12 iron "Josher" butty's lie buried!

 

The full details of these lost boats are detailed in this thread, there is on going attempts to do something at the site but progress is very slow: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28897&view=findpost&p=623446&hl=harefield

Edited by Laurence Hogg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://collections.canalrivertrust.org.uk/bw192.3.2.2.12.1.69

I know we have had this discussion before, but an old friend of mine had this picture of the "Hasty" and "Richmond" on the wall of her flat as she maintained it showed her parents, John Boyes and his wife. Her eyesight was good, and she had had this picture for many years, so she ought to know her own family? - I think we shall have to agree to disagree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Water supply was not an influence on lock size as it takes almost the same amount of water to pass two narrow boats boats carrying 25 tons each as it does for one wide boat carrying 50 tons. What was considered was cost, as it was around one third cheaper to build a narrow canal than a wide canal. By the time the canal proprietors realised that a wide canal would have been better for carrying the tonnage of goods which early canals attracted, it was too late as too many industries had been built alongside the canal to make widening it economic. You don't just have to widen the locks, but also the channel, even if pairs of narrow boats were involved, as happened to some extent on the GUC. Even though the GUC had little industry alongside it outside of London, it was still not widened to suit wide boats because of the cost, though there was considerable dredging/bank improvement to improve the channel for narrow boats.

 

Yes Pluto

I understand about initial cost, and I understand about widening the full track (lower GU style) and I know about the post 1890 to 1950 pairs built as or to be a pair.

 

What I am thinking about is.

 

1). Just speed at a lock site.

2). Relief of congestion at locks.

3). Reducing overall journey time! Which after all is what a lot of it was all about.

 

The sort of thing we do with roads, bits of road get wider but the lane stays the same size. (in principal)

 

The canal companies were paying massive dividends so funds would/should not have been a problem.

 

If a new lock was required why not build it to take the additional traffic that had been generated.

 

Which comes back to the question when did two boats start to arrive at a lock, that would only take one boat?

 

Was it always that way? Or did families “leaving the bank” provide the addition (free) labor to make it possible or even essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to read 'The Waterways of Britain' by D.D. Gladstone, ISBN 0 7134 3159 8. It's a social panorama that tells of the history of the canals from the social point of view. Originally the canals were peopled by folk on the bank. But when the companies began to cut wages in competition, boatmen were forced into living aboard, hence the living cabins on the narrow boat. That's a very simplistic description, and different waterways had different practices in real life.

 

When two boats arrived at a lock capable of taking one boat, they took their turn - or fought for it. Or they worked as a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to read 'The Waterways of Britain' by D.D. Gladstone, ISBN 0 7134 3159 8. It's a social panorama that tells of the history of the canals from the social point of view. Originally the canals were peopled by folk on the bank. But when the companies began to cut wages in competition, boatmen were forced into living aboard, hence the living cabins on the narrow boat. That's a very simplistic description, and different waterways had different practices in real life.

 

When two boats arrived at a lock capable of taking one boat, they took their turn - or fought for it. Or they worked as a team.

 

Yes, read it long ago. Did all that stuff at school.

The question is when did a pair become common?

If canal companies were such trail blazers, why RE-BUILD a lock half the size required to pass a pair, if the re-build was post pairs, never seen a credible explanation on that.

I only put the social comment in as a possible enabling development (free labour or additional accommodation for a large family).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wish I'd done any of that stuff at school!

 

I don't think you can put a date on when boating became popular in pairs (horse boating that is), it surely must be down to the fortunes of the individual boatmen in being able to have sufficient capital and family members to run two boats. Putting a specific date on that is difficult, it would vary from location to location and from commodities available to be moved, also if company boats - whether the company endorsed the idea which I'm sure if more profit were to be had - they would have.

 

As regards why companies did not rebuild lock to a wider dimension, I think Pluto has answered that one in that there is more to consider than just widening a lock. It amounts to a complete destruction and reconstruction needing more land and more supporting ground surrounding the lock structure to accommodate the new lock. This was not always available, and was always more costly than rebuilding an existing structure to existing dimensions ,companies want profit - not expense. Of course the Grand Union widened in the late thirties, but that was a bold decision made in the hope of greater traffic, and the expected use of wide boats did not work out as expected.

 

Sometimes credible explanations are simply not available. It's not that black and white. Grey exists. Mistakes were made and not always corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speed was not that important, and most contemporary mid-to late nineteenth discussion I have seen suggest that the comparative slowness of canal transport was offset by the lower rates, compared to railways. The 1893 Railway & Canal Tolls & Rates legislation did away, to a great extent, this difference and was a major factor in the subsequent decline in canal transport.

 

Congestion on canals was not a problem, as the boats which were held up were bulk cargo boats carrying coal or stone. General cargo boats had priority at locks, so their journey times were kept to a minimum where possible. Also, if you look at the long-distance tonnages carried, narrow canals were not that important from the late nineteenth century onward, certainly compared to a canal like the L&LC. Even on the L&LC, comparatively short distance coal was responsible for the greatest tonnage, for which speed was not important. Given the costs of altering locks and the amount of extra income derived, it was just not economic.

 

Funds were certainly a problem in the late nineteenth century, with the L&LC incapable of raising the £30,000 necessary to lengthen its locks to take 100 ton standard boats. Most of the canal histories you read do not have a clue about the practical economics of canal operation, which was far more complicated than is usually made out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

(snipped)

If canal companies were such trail blazers, why RE-BUILD a lock half the size required to pass a pair, if the re-build was post pairs, never seen a credible explanation on that.

(snipped)

 

The companies sought maximum returns for minimum outlay. Anyone trailblazing will inevitably make mistakes as can be seen throughout history in the manufacturing industry. Whatever brilliant idea is created it inevitable gets improved upon. Techniques and equipment improve with experience and advances in metallurgy and more. It's just that with locks and general canal infrastructure, some things became uneconomical to change in the light of returns available. What huge dividends did get paid went into a more grandiose lifestyle for the backers. Many failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to get back to the original question - "Is there a difference between a horse drawn Narrowboat and a 'Butty' ?"

Basically - YES, but not always, horse boats tended to have fore cabins, to provide additional accommodation, but not always. Some of the iron work, the answer pins of example, tended not to be fitted to a horse boat, the shape of a horse boat hull, tended to be finer and maybe longer swims, and more rounded bilges, and therefore they carried far less. The last point being the important thing when your paid by the Ton. So once motor boats appeared, boatmen tended to want modern butties so they could get more tons on and be paid more for their journey. This wasn't always true, some captains would continue to live with their whole family on the old horse boat and employ a steering for the motor boat who would also live on the Motor, several Claytoners worked this way, thus the survival of the Gifford.

At the end of the day boat design changed all the time in an attempt to maximise the tonnage carried, The last Admirals where up to well over 40tons per boat on deep waters, given a horse boat carried say 17tons that's an awful lot more spondulies earned for a trip.

--

Cheers Ian Mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the iron work, the answer pins of example, tended not to be fitted to a horse boat,

--

Cheers Ian Mac

 

'Answer pins' on horse boats/butties started as Tunnel Hooks, for facilitating towage of numbers of horse boats through tunnels. Maybe not fitted to early horse boats, but I imagine that came in well before the days of butties with motor boats.

 

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to get back to the original question - "Is there a difference between a horse drawn Narrowboat and a 'Butty' ?"

 

At the end of the day boat design changed all the time in an attempt to maximise the tonnage carried, The last Admirals where up to well over 40tons per boat on deep waters, given a horse boat carried say 17tons that's an awful lot more spondulies earned for a trip.

 

The change from horse drawn boats to motor ones also coincided to a large extent with the change from wooden craft to iron and then steel ones, which also had an impact on design.

 

Tam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to get back to the original question - "Is there a difference between a horse drawn Narrowboat and a 'Butty' ?"

Basically - YES, but not always, horse boats tended to have fore cabins, to provide additional accommodation, but not always. Some of the iron work, the answer pins of example, tended not to be fitted to a horse boat, the shape of a horse boat hull, tended to be finer and maybe longer swims, and more rounded bilges, and therefore they carried far less. The last point being the important thing when your paid by the Ton. So once motor boats appeared, boatmen tended to want modern butties so they could get more tons on and be paid more for their journey. This wasn't always true, some captains would continue to live with their whole family on the old horse boat and employ a steering for the motor boat who would also live on the Motor, several Claytoners worked this way, thus the survival of the Gifford.

At the end of the day boat design changed all the time in an attempt to maximise the tonnage carried, The last Admirals where up to well over 40tons per boat on deep waters, given a horse boat carried say 17tons that's an awful lot more spondulies earned for a trip.

--

Cheers Ian Mac

I am not sure what you are basing any of the above upon, certainly not health registration or gauging documents.

 

I have transcripts of about three quarters of all of the health registrations that were issued (1877 to 1969) and these indicate that fore cabins were fitted to unpowered narrow boats before the introduction of motors as well as after - and there were no particular regional variations as to whether an unpowered narrow boat was fitted with a fore cabin or not. There are also about an equal number of alterations where a fore cabin was either added or removed at a later date in a boats life.

 

I have transcripts of all available B.C.N. / Grand Junction / Oxford Canal gauge tables and these show no significant difference between an unpowered narrow boat built as a horse boat or built as a butty. There were clearly some regional variations in narrow boat construction dependant upon the waterways that the boat was built to operate on, and boat builders had their own preferences in design. As time went on some unpowered boats were built for bulk capacity with bluffer fore ends and deeper hull sides, but these tended to be towards the end of carrying and were built for large companies. I have certainly seen no evidence that any unpowered boat built as a butty would have a larger carrying capacity than a horse boat.

 

In the bigger picture there were very few unpowered narrow boats that were built specifically to be a butty, and most of these were for use on the Grand Junction / Union Canal from the mid 1920's onward.

 

The change from horse drawn boats to motor ones also coincided to a large extent with the change from wooden craft to iron and then steel ones, which also had an impact on design.

 

Tam

There were an awful lot of iron hulled horse boats built prior to the introduction of motors, and even a few steel ones - although in reality these were a small percentage of all of the boats ever built captain.gif

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.