fanshaft

Thanks - that makes sense.

I would agree!

In view of the law mentioned by Mac (of which I was unaware) presumably the enclosed arrangement per Claytons and their larger brethren counted as tanks. It didn't stop Mattys from running with phosphorous waste in open holds! The Severn tankers were operated by a variety of companies but the best known were Harkers and Bowker and King.

The Claytons boats and the tanker barges on the larger waterways (e.g. 'Exol Pride' now running lube oil from Hull to Rotherham) didn't/don't have tanks installed. The only boats with tanks, historically, that I can think of were five or six narrow boats of the Cowburn and Cowpar fleet which had cylindrical tanks, 4ft 6in in diameter. So why were these not prone to capsizing? An answer given to me was that the centre of gravity was lower with the heavier/denser acid compared to light weight fuel oil. In more modern times (May 1978) a cylindrical tank, approx 9ft in diameter and about 38 ft in length was fitted by me into the hold of Leeds & Liverpool short boat 'Irwell' as a trial for carriage of waste liquid from Esholt to Knostrop (Leeds) where it was either pumped off into any waiting tanker barge or up the pipeline into the works, a highly efficient operation. The tank arrangement had two drawbacks, however - the weight of the tank (5 tonnes) reduced the payload to 45 tonnes, and when returning light there was a tendency for the tank to catch the lowest bridge in Leeds if the pound was slightly high. It was also not too easy to see over the top when empty! Thus short boat 'Everton' (a more modern and better carrier) was converted into a tanker with an arrangement similar to the Claytons i.e. tight bulkheads each end of the hold and a centre bulkhead with a valve to allow for trimming when loading, and to discharge the forward area. Again an on board diesel pump was very efficient, a payload at 56 tonnes excellent and a wheelhouse with wheel steering provided a degree of comfort for the crew. I was assured that both vessels would be dangerously unstable without baffles but in fact that wasn't an issue at all. (I was also informed that it would be impossible to steer a short boat with a wheel and this turned out to be untrue as well - after all Sheffield size and West Country keels were being provided with wheel steering without issue.) Both boats occasionally went to Goole when there was a stoppage on the L&L canal. The traffic ended when the need to dispose of sludge from Esholt in this manner (to sea) ceased although the larger tankers carried on running from Knostrop and Long Sandall down to Goole until the 1990s when sea disposal was finally ended.

It was Birmingham & Midland boats 'Yeoford' and 'Pictor' that were used. Initially a round tank was installed but this made the boat capsize so a different type of tank, 'rectangular with a moderately pitched top' (per IWA Bulletin) in shape was provided which was fine. The first loads were carried in Feb 1970 but the weight of the tanks and depth problems on the Wyrley & Essington reduced the payload to 34 tonnes. Several more trips took place but a change of ownership of Duckhams and policy brought about an early demise.

Unless the boat has an MCA certificate and the skipper a Boatmaster Licence plus at least one other member of crew. This applies whether passengers are fare paying or not. Put simply - any boat used other than for private pleasure must have skipper with a Boatmaster Licence or if under 24 metres an equivalent eg RYA even if carrying only cargo or up to 12 passengers. I think the max 12 passengers plus crew was brought in to exclude the many small ferries, which often carry fewer than 12, from the full MCA regulations. I had a small restaurant boat, 52 ft x 12ft 6in which was licensed by MCA for 62 passengers plus up to 6 crew.

I think the effect of the railway competition has been overstated and some canals prospered up to nationalisation. Although the railways did win traffic from waterways for cargoes ideal for water carriage e.g. coal from a waterside Colliery to a waterside receiver, with no rail connection, the railway couldn't compete because of the need for transhipment to horse and cart for final delivery. Goods trains were very slow, passenger trains had priority (as they do today) and rail wagons could be days in transit, shunted from siding to siding - some got lost! (The IWA demonstrated this even in the 1950s).. Also for many , moving into a boat cabin or cabins was surely an improvement over the sort of primitive accommodation that most working people ' enjoyed' - few if any would have owned or even rented a house? .

Again - really interesting. As a long time passenger boat operator (for some years chairman of the APCO Passenger Boat Section) I never understood why horse drawn boats were (are?) exempt. Another exemption was vessels that operated on isolated waterways and were 'not held to be in navigation' as the legal phrase had it, I recall. Glover's later partner Jonathan Rennard (Canal Carriers Ltd of Shipley) converted wooden motor short boat 'Fellowship' into a passenger boat to operate between Bingley and Silsden (mainly) before or during WW2 but by around 1960, according to Mr Rennard, 'the Board of trade made it too expensive to operate' so it clearly did have a BoT certificate. It was my mother's enthusiastic report of a trip on Fellowship around 1956 that excited me as a nine year old and led me to start a passenger boat business on the L&L 15 years later. A former crew member of mine, George Rance, talked of helping with the Holidays at Home trips which were run by Silsden Co-Op using their horse drawn boats during the last War. Attached scan is the heading of an article about Jonathan Rennard and 'Fellowship' in the local press in 1969 showing the boat in question. Note the bike: this was used not only to get the many swing bridges open efficiently but to pedal ahead and ensure that the fish and chips order from the shop adjacent to Silsden bridge was ready to be loaded on board as the boat passed through Silsden bridge ready to wind where the boatyard is now. Mrs Rennard was in charge of the galley.

That is quite a find! Thanks. They seem to have 12 passengers which would comply with the Board of Trade Regulations (max 12 passengers plus crew), even though they tended to be ignored on the canals until Jason's Trip was inaugurated in 1951 and the BoT's attention was drawn to it!

Interesting - I wonder what service that was?

The Metro WaterBus was actually the brain child of the newly appointed WYPTE Recreational Transport Officer Colin Speakman, the noted historian, writer and transport activist, with whom I am still in touch. It was fortuitous as, inspired by the BW Zoo Water Bus service, and the South Yorkshire service introduced in (I think) 1975 between Doncaster and Conisbrough, I'd had similar ideas myself. Bus and Canal tours had been operated since 1976 by Bradford, Leeds, Halifax and Huddersfield buses, using 'Apollo', between Shipley and Rodley and these were phased out when the water bus was introduced in 1983. The publicity was excellent, so much so that people were turned away initially leading to some grumbles. In the first year WYPTE provided an income guarantee but in fact the subsidy required was only £314, less than the £1750 envisaged. From 1984 the number of trips was increased (eventually daily in the peaks) and with Metro support with promotion and publicity, not to mention the genuine bus stops, timetables cases, and ticket machines, the service then operated and washed its face financially. Boats used were 'Apollo' (a 1929 Midlands & Coast vessel built by Chrichtons on the Dee, purchased by me in 1971), and 'Water Prince' (formerly 'Wharfe' built by Pimblotts in 1936, converted to a passenger vessel by British waterways in 1958 and purchased by me (Apollo Canal Carriers Ltd) in 1976). 'Apollo' (48 seats) generally did two round trips, and 'Water Prince' (78 seats) one, per day but when the number of days operating was increased it was just 'Apollo' on the service. In the first year over 3000 passengers were carried and the waterbus continued to be a popular feature of the district with the service extended slightly down through Shipley to Windhill, and the junction with the Bradford Canal. Keeping to the schedule, with three locks in the route, was a challenge, but after BW appointed a seasonal lock keeper at Dowley Gap, Alan would have the locks ready and waiting every time on cue and this was a great help. After sale of the business in 1998 the new owners, at some point, decided to discontinue the service. I retained ownership of 'Apollo' (leased initially to the new owners) and the boat has over the last ten years been gradually restored to its historic condition as an Ernest Thomas tug in which guise, shortened to 56 feet, it had operated on the BCN until the late 1960s. Another West Yorkshire water bus trial operation in 1983 was on the Calder & Hebble between Dewsbury and Wakefield but this was not successful and was abandoned, however a trial service on the Rochdale Canal between Hebden Bridge and Todmorden was deemed to be a success and was continued. In 1984 Waterways World listed water bus services in Bristol Docks, Colchester, Milton Keynes, Sheffield and Mexborough, and on the Thames - but curiously not the well established (1959?) Zoo Water Bus, nor the central London Thames services. How many water bus services are operated today? In recent years services have been established in central Birmingham, in Glasgow (on the Clyde), and (marketed unfortunately as a 'water taxi') in Leeds but I believe the Glasgow service no longer operates. Photo shows 'Apollo' in water bus mode picking up conductor, lock and swing bridge operator and barman Derek Offord below Hirst Lock, with skipper Jim at the tiller.

I'm sending all the info I have on 'Wye' to Roy plus a selection of the very many photos I have, taken between 1972 and 1982 when she was operated by me carrying cargo (we did a few camping trips as well in around 1973/4 with Irwell and Weaver and Lune). It's good to know Wye has a future.

Malcolm Braine told me that a 'narrow boat ' was the ordinary original horse drawn variety. He always referred to motorised craft as a ' motor boat.'. I never asked him about steamers! I believe 'narrowboat' was coined by Waterways World to describe the modern variant, some of which have little in common with their historic forebears!

I recall in the 1960s BW removed the windlasses/ handles between Shipley and Leeds because vandals just broke off the hand cuff locks. So you needed an extra long windlass for some of the paddles although some could be lifted with a standard windlass. Then chains and later style handcuffs were fitted but in the case of the dreadful Fenner gearing (45 turns) could easily be broken off As Mike says the lock keeper at (for example Dowley Gap to Five Rise) would unlock the cuff locks in the morning and re lock when finished for the day. Boat crews could work.the locks themselves any time of day and night until at least the 1980s and one lock.keeper looked after all 11 locks Hirst Wood to Five Rise. Another looked after Newlay to Leeds. That left Field and Dobson locks which someone from the Apperley Bridge yard would check daily.

It is neither! Partly because I don't know and partly because if I did know I would respect confidentiality until a public announcement were made My point was that there is no reason why establishing an aggregate depot in south Yorkshire would have any bearing on whether a similar depot would or would not be established in Leeds - other than potential barge operators the parties concerned may not be the same and the markets are completely different. What I can say is that the various parties (and there are several players involved) are keen to see Stourton/Port Leeds happen and are in discussion right now.

This is, of course, a welcome development and the enterprise of Rob and his team at MMS is to be applauded. In terms of aggregate distribution Travis Perkins is relatively small scale - just a part of their retail offer as builders merchants with a wide range of building materials. TP took over JH Walker in York and when I visited they showed no interest in retaining or re-starting barge deliveries of bulk material as their aggregate was all sourced in bags rather than loose. Likewise the TP canal side depot in Wakefield had not received supplies by barge for very many years. TP are not established in Rotherham so that could be an opportunity if they can find a waterside site but the market for large scale movement of aggregate isn't to builders' merchants but to ready mix plants and the like. In terms of Leeds (Stourton) this is an entirely separate development supported by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (so clearly not a player in South Yorkshire!) - the markets are quite distinct so there would be no reason to pursue an opportunity in Rotherham and not in Leeds. *I should have said 'in central Rotherham' D.

Glen Tramway aka Railway is close to Saltaire visitor moorings - just cross over the river.

No but you were lucky! I took my boat to a well known and respected boatyard in 2014 to have a new steel cabin and engine room plus some hull work, and then engine re-installation, cabin fit out and running gear. After two years the steel work was done to a very high standard but no more could be done. So the boat then went to another well known and respected yard for completion and is still not finished after nearly nine years - albeit the work again done to a high standard.

Interestingly the dredger doesn't go into Albert Dock but berths alongside Riverside Quay using its spud legs. It discharges using a long conveyor into the sand storage area next to Albert Dock. Most of the sand is taken out currently by road for local delivery

I understand your point of view. Barges stopped running regularly to Leeds in 2013 (oil and aggregate). In both cases there was nothing wrong with the waterway, the service or the cost - the oil depot was to close (it did), and the aggregate company merged, created new regions, and the material for Whitwood was then sourced from a North Yorkshire quarry, owned by the same company, which had spare capacity, in the same region but with no water access. In terms of Port Leeds the grounds for optimism are as follows: Planners are very supportive as is the West Yorkshire Combined Authority; there is a huge demand for aggregate, especially in Leeds, with declining resources. Planners are not keen to grant permission for further extraction from conventional quarries - although an exception has been made for Birkwood quarry from deliveries can be made by barge. The obvious solution is marine aggregate of which there is an abundance but it has to be transported quite a distance - in this case from Hull. Movement by road of the tonnages envisaged would require huge numbers of trucks and drivers and be expensive. Movement by rail is not possible as there are no paths available and neither end of the journey has a rail siding. Movement by water from waterside to waterside is significantly cheaper than by road (hence the on-site readymix plant at Stourton) and this helps to cover fixed costs allowing other tonnages to go out of the gate relatively short distances to customers in the surrounding areas (that's how Whitwood worked). Barge transport is also demonstrably greener than any other mode other than pipeline (obviously not an option here!). Return loads from Leeds to Hull are being offered which will make the operation more efficient in terms of use of resources (barges and equipment) and will provide additional income for the Trust as will additional movements of non-aggregate cargoes. The companies involved in this project are long established and very experienced in transport, shipping, logistics and aggregates and over £1 million has been been expended thus far - hardly likely if the project was not deemed have a very good chance of succeeding. As you say let's see where we are in a year's time!

Well about 40% of the cost was dredging through Knottingley which needed doing anyway. Port Leeds is to be part funded by WYCA an the balance from the investors. Dredging needed doing to enable the trials to proceed. Much of the design work is already done. Planning permission for part of the site has been obtained. It isn't practical to continue using Knostrop wharf owing to the constraints of a very busy site and restricted road access with housing nearby - it can't handle the tonnages envisaged. In terms of silting probably the only area where this is likely to be a problem is below Lemonroyd where regular dredging/ploughing is programed anyway.

Branfords, Humber Barges and MMS Workboats did around 52 loaded trips Hull to Knostrop, Leeds. This has proved the concept but Knostrop depot is not suitable for various reasons. The next stage is for the customer and partner companies to develop Port Leeds at Stourton for aggregates, recycling, readymix, and general cargoes. It's hoped that they will be on site this year, but additional planning permission will be needed, design work etc. The Trust has spent around £1 million dredging for 2.5 metres draft Goole to Leeds in readiness.

I understand so.

Yes I think you are right - the pans and tug were left for a while after the job finished. This was the last large scale carrying on a cruising waterway other than the aggregate traffic, 450,000 tonnes, from Denham to West Drayton which ran for some years from 2003. A smaller carrying operation has recently started on the Regents Canal, waste for recycling from Camden to Powerday's wharf in Willesden, operated by Wood, Hall & Heward for iRecycle.

Yes in effect. When the contract re-started from a new pit below Thurmaston lock tugs and pans were used (none had been available in 1976) but the first operator didn't last long and the job was taken over by the Northern Tug & Barge Co (Richard Barnett and Geoff Wheat) who ran the operation until it ceased in 1996. I think the pans (pictured below) carried 60 tonnes, constrained by the maximum draft on this section of the Soar, 3ft 6 in, due to a Roman causeway (I was told) below Thurmaston, which couldn't be dredged deeper. Indeed, Tess and Soar were too high for the bridges and when ballasted to get under them couldn't carry any cargo. They were banned by BW - what a waste of two good boats.