Laurence Hogg

Talking with boating friends who go back a while, all agree that "pumping the tiller" is an incorrect description. "Working the tiller" seems to be the correct one.

Failing an exam for pumping the tiller just about shows what a load of crap the RYA course is. How to pump the tiller is what is needed by newcomers, try winding a motor in Norton Pool with a butty without pumping the tiller. Pumping the tiller means a sharp thrust then a slow return followed by a thrust again, and repeated until the speed of winding increases suitably, a motor will almost spin on a axis in the right situation. It fiightens me to think a young recruit could be put on this course then the following day be put onto a loaded maintenance vessel. A few hours on a light tin box then given a waterborne HGV. scary! Having just taught two people to steer astern on a GU motor for quite a distance, one picked it up straight away understanding the hydrodynamics perfectly, the other was incapable. This alone should be part of test for anyone who ultimately could be handling a large heavy craft.

Carl, who sanctioned that act, I would like to know the name of the BW op who signed that off, as far as I know no one was consulted on the value of the boat.

The boats that went across are the basis of the Dunkirk phony story, however I have seen a photograph of one took a few years ago in Belgium, without doubt a wide UK boat now converted. The first narrowboat to cross to the continent under its own power was "Progress" in 1990.

As this is a total rebuild using just the salvaged iron work I would like to suggest that the new boat should carry a name highly associated with the boat, that of Rosie Whitlock. To rename the new boat Lucy when so much of it is new would be a shame and I am sure that everyone who knew the Whitlocks and the boat would be very happy to see the Whitlocks so honoured.

"Pioneer" rotted away at Cowley, I photographed the remains in around 1972/3

Former boat builders Hancock and Lane at Daventry built a substantial number of BW work flats pre 1980. TWT at gloucester should have the drawings (best of luck)

Nice looking boat - i supplied Phil with the plans

I would go with that being correct in essence. there are some locks on the Shropshire canals long lost that may have been but thats about it.

"A classy bit of engineering" - why? This is obviously based on a misjudged impression of Hingleys "Crown", this was a Midlands and coast horse boat built by Yarwoods as "North" in 1926. It was subsequently sold to Hingley and made into a tug. The bow is fine and the cabin quite low, the boat ended up as "Lion" owned at one time by John Saxon. What is shown here is a comic book interpretation of a BCN tug. I think it is wrong to use a historic livery when the boat portrayed is so remote from what it should have been. I have a picture of crown on old Hill dock and compared to this new boat there are a number of substantial differences, the main one being one is real and the other fake! note the length of the counter on "Crown".

Hi, Ernest Thomas at his base at Calf Heath had several trip boats which were trimmed by water ballast tanks, they were sold on after the fold up, also it was common practice on Grand Union Canal carrying Co boats to ballast the stern down with water when unladen, then use the bilge pump to re trim. The sea cocks fitted had a three way action which allowed water to be drawn from the outside, the bilge or directed into the bilge. My old motor "Neptune" had one fitted which I used during ownership.

Another TWT disaster, painted nicely on top to look good and incapable or doing anything because what you cant see is rotten. These people are incapable of looking afeter prime exhibits!! Boat should be sold off with a agreement on its future role to a private buyer who is capable of looking after the boat.

All FMC fore end cants are plain not with sculptured ends. "I'm sure the 3LW is a spankingly nice engine, and is not as ridiculously overpowered as many that people insist on fitting, but were ANY ever fitted to narrowboats ? If so, then very few, I'm sure." The LW range was principally designed for stationary and rail use according to Gardners literature, they can run vertical or horizontal (as fitted under DMU trains). However the LW2 was used by Mersey Weaver & SCCCo in some of their motors, "Eileen" being one, Barlows had some too post war. The 3 cylinder ones were rare, the odd BCN tug used them.

This boat doesnt in my opinion command the price. the restoration is flawed, the styling of the fore end cants looks like a Tyler boat! Theres not much original boat left there in reality. The combination of rectangular and round alloy windows rather enhances the image to be that of an early 1970's conversion. I cannot understand why "rebuild" an historic craft in such a way, very odd route to go. definatly another "Dover".

SThe boat is almost certainly a second generation Bantock, probably a GWR station boat. Bow and stern are original as far as is viewable. These boats are fairly common and if well maintained will go on for ever.

The quality of NCD hulls speaks volumes for the company, if the owner then decides to fit out to the extreme then its their choice. At least the boat looks good. At leat their boat doesnt look like a second hand greyhound yankee bus top glued to a hull designed by martians......

The expert eyes who assessed these boats are questionable. Formalhaut built in 1953, I think not, 1935 would be more appropriate. Strange how interesting rare craft like box boats are unwanted, likewise joey boats, once the ome of the most numerous of any type, now down to a handful of wooden examples. Why too a nurser bow? Irrespective of the condition, preservation of the remains would at least retain a true example and shape, all they need to do is to conserve the wood as is and fibreglass over the outside. Where now would you see a Sephtons bow if" Freiendship" had been rebuilt? We have "Saturn", "Raymond", "Gifford" etc in nice order - fine but they aren't original, effectively just copies.

Checking the online index there are a number of references to Jason's trip in Waterways World, Jan 1973, Nov 1978, Nov 91 and May 01, one refers to Holland coming from Tewksbury.

I believe the current "Jason" is "Holland" (originally unpowered but converted at Yarwoods in 1937) which previously worked as a trip boat a Tewksbury, built Saltley 1905 with a fore cabin. The original Jason was purchased from Barlow's and was a ex Chas Nelson motor, around 1978 the ex GUCCCo butty "Serpens" joined with the original and around that time Holland came on the scene. They also had a ex GU tug for a short period, sorry name escapes me.

In a conversation with Chris Coburn (NB Progress) the other day I asked him, how would you use the new bollards? No immediate answer was forthcoming but the email copied below raises a serious question, that is that BW shouls show us. "Hi Laurence, Here is a comment from me regarding the BW bollards issue. I am mystified, to say the least, regarding a need for new bollards being installed on narrow locks, as it is being done. NO-ONE has been able to give me an answer, other than "its for H&S". Ok, if such sets of three bollards are required for the safe use of narrow locks, PLEASE CAN WE BE SHOWN HOW TO USE THEM and have their safety features demonstrated. Surely that is not an unreasonable request. A suitable "public demonstration" with ALL invited to see would enable British Waterways to put my, and most other boaters, queries to rest? All the best, Chris" The actual email can be forwarded to anyone who requires proof of the quote being genuine, however I have forwarded to Robin Evans and Simon Salem asking for a demonstration.

Rodney Pitt posted the following on CanalScape-BCN this morning: The Waterways Trust and Its Museums - The Official View! Following the earlier email about the situaiton and future of teh canal museums, I sent an email to Roger Hanbury, asking him for clarification. The following is his reply:- The issues are complex; I hope the following gives you a more complete picture and corrects a number of inaccuracies. The Waterways Trust exists to enrich people’s lives through waterways. In the case of the National Waterways Museum, we have an absolute commitment to realising the best possible future for the three museum sites. In recent years we had been moving towards a policy of establishing Ellesmere Port as the hub site - concentrating curatorial, marketing and learning services from this site. We have continued to review how best to maintain and support the sites in the light of some very real financial pressures. There are particular issues at Gloucester due to the re-development going on around the site. Visitor numbers have reduced dramatically as there are few visitors to the Docks and this has undermined the financial strength of the site. Nonetheless over the last 12 months we have been able to complete a refresh of the museum with funding provided by British Waterways, Gloucester Heritage Urban Regeneration Company and the Friends of the Museum. This has strengthened the offer for visitors and broadened its appeal but continuing development in the Docks has precluded a recovery in visitor numbers. The Trust has taken a major financial loss in the current year and looking ahead we do not have the resources to continue as we are. Therefore we are actively working with partners in Gloucester to realise a museum that is in touch with, and relevant to, its local community. These discussions include the Friends of the Museum, who have sustained their support for the museum since the beginning, and we have approached the City Council. The discussions continue and are not finalised so the outcome cannot be predicted; we know there is a great deal of local support for the museum to be retained and to serve as the main point of reference for visitors to the Docks and this provides grounds for optimism. The wider pressures on the National Waterways Museum prompted a reorganisation completed this autumn. This has centred the professional support in the museums at Ellesmere Port which is our main site. Our limited curatorial resources will therefore be located at Ellesmere Port and oversee our work at Gloucester and Stoke Bruerne. At both sites we are looking to enhance the support we have with expertise proved by suitably experienced volunteers and other partners. This is a model that is used by other museums in the independent sector and is already in place at Stoke Bruerne. We are not expecting to make any further changes at Stoke Bruerne but we will welcome and encourage local initiatives to realise a better museum and community resource. In refreshing the displays at Gloucester Docks a number of items on display have changed but many have been retained. This is part of the normal changes you would expect in the life of a museum. All items removed from display have been dealt with properly: accessioned items (which are part of the Designated Collection) have been retained in our stores, and a small number of disposals have been dealt with in line with our policy which is approved by MLA. The Tug Walsall has been retained in our store; any future disposal would be compliant with our policy. A number of items from the forge which were not accessioned have gone to Tommy Neilson’s boat yard elsewhere in the Docks. The whole process has been carefully managed and any suggestion that we have dealt with accessioned objects improperly is unfounded. Turning to the archive, it has long been recognised that the Gloucester based archive is not adequately housed, it was placed in the roof of Llanthony Warehouse circa 1988 as a temporary solution and has subsequently grown. As you will know the records have been substantially catalogued and the catalogue is available online at www.virtualwaterways.co.uk However physical access for visitors and disaster recovery is inadequate, we do not have the space for further expansion and there are no environmental controls in a space that is prone to wide temperature fluctuations. Our current thinking is that it should be co-located with the museum at Ellesmere Port where we have potential space in buildings that are accessible, thermally stable with scope for expansion in the years ahead. Change is therefore inevitable but the detail is not yet clear. Any move will be dependent on securing funding but any new facility will provide better security for the archive, provide public access and research facilities supported by suitable expertise. There is currently no time-scale set for the relocation of the Gloucester archives to Ellesmere Port, but we will actively look to establish the national waterways archive as an integral and leading part of re-vitalising and re-energising this museum. We are working through very challenging times and actively pursuing a policy of transforming the National Waterways Museum that can establish the relevance of 2000+ miles of world class waterways heritage to modern audiences. Both Stuart Gillis (TWT’s Director of the National Waterways Museum) and I are more than happy to listen to ideas and discuss the way we are working with partners and moving forward. I feel that while this clarifies some issues about actions to date, it still leaves a great deal of unanswered questions. What do other think? Rodney Pitt Canal and Industrial Historian

Having spoken with Chris Coburn again this morning it would appear that TWT is without doubt part of BW and funded by BW, however BW havent paid TWT what they promised and that is part of the problem overall. I cannot see why the archive should move, even if it did why not rent a small unit with one paid member of staff and a few volunteers. The footfall through the doors of the museums are in the majority not wishing to view the archive. The boats should be sold off / leased to anyone capable of looking after and restoring them, this could be done with conditions regarding condition, display and where the boats should be kept. On look at the turn out of craft at the Braunston show proves this would be a workable option.

Its with some regret that in my opinion nothing should be placed in the care of TWT. Aslo if you have lent them artifacts which they are not using I would be looking to get them returned. A private museum is probably a better idea at the moment as there seem to be some concerns being raised over care of artifacts at Gloucester. Chris Coburn who is a trustee of TWT and a good friend is going to try and delve into this.

Waterways Museums and Archives in real danger? The following message appeared on canalScape-BCN tonight, I have checked the issue of a move and archive move with a TWT trustee, all seems true. what is worrying is the reporting of possible disposal and scapping of exhibits, this calls for some real concerns to be voiced. the post is as follows: "I heard recently "straight from the horses mouth" as it were, but don't ask me which one. The National Archives at Gloucester are to close within 18 months, being relocated to Ellesmere Port, the question is where, will they still be available for inspection and, most importantly, will there be anyone capable of answering our questions. Also to be closed, The Gloucester Waterways Museum, this is to be handed over to Gloucester Council, who may keep it as a waterways museum. Also to be downgraded is Stoke Bruerne, to a local canal museum. Finally, what happened to the exhibits removed from Gloucester? Answer, the small ones went back into store, anything heavy went for SCRAP, including a GJC Rivet Forge, even the Bantam Tug "Walsall", was to be scrapped, but was saved by the staff and is now in store. Some items jumped back out of the skips and have been privately saved. Also of interest is that there is no longer any curatorial staff at Gloucester. Can anything be done about this?"