Three Fellows on the river Soar

[captain birdseye]

I was looking through a box of old pictures and came across these. We met the gravel boats on the Soar whilst on holiday on Lindsey when she was being hired out as a camper from UCC in 1984

[Stilllearning]

Is that a butty or a concertina?

[BWM]

21 minutes ago, captain birdseye said:

I was looking through a box of old pictures and came across these. We met the gravel boats on the Soar whilst on holiday on Lindsey when she was being hired out as a camper from UCC in 1984

They have both got some serious winding damage, looks to have blasted the wooden cants off of both port side gunwhale angles!

[pete harrison]

1 hour ago, BWM said:

They have both got some serious winding damage, looks to have blasted the wooden cants off of both port side gunwhale angles!

The bent hulls were not caused by winding - more to do with the unsympathetic way these boats were emptied 

 

edit = the wooden gunwales were removed for much of the length of the hold of most if not all of the boats on this traffic. All of the narrow boats employed by Threefellows Carrying are still extant and all have been straightened, with a few now trading as fuel boats.

 

photograph taken from Matt Parrott's website some years ago

Edited May 11, 2020 by pete harrison

[Movin' on]

1 hour ago, captain birdseye said:

I was looking through a box of old pictures and came across these. We met the gravel boats on the Soar whilst on holiday on Lindsey when she was being hired out as a camper from UCC in 1984

And in the background of the top pic

[BWM]

6 hours ago, pete harrison said:

The bent hulls were not caused by winding - more to do with the unsympathetic way these boats were emptied 

 

edit = the wooden gunwales were removed for much of the length of the hold of most if not all of the boats on this traffic. All of the narrow boats employed by Threefellows Carrying are still extant and all have been straightened, with a few now trading as fuel boats.

 

photograph taken from Matt Parrott's website some years ago

I would imagine that the reduction in strength caused by removing the woodwork wouldn't have helped, have always heard this sort of damage referred to as winded but thought it was more likely getting a turn wrong when loaded or crashed into. I can see how that swinging grab may have caused havoc though, i'd have been annoyed if my boats were treated like that! Was Stamford part of this traffic? That had a huge bend in the side when we looked at it.

[pete harrison]

7 minutes ago, BWM said:

I would imagine that the reduction in strength caused by removing the woodwork wouldn't have helped, have always heard this sort of damage referred to as winded but thought it was more likely getting a turn wrong when loaded or crashed into. I can see how that swinging grab may have caused havoc though, i'd have been annoyed if my boats were treated like that! Was Stamford part of this traffic? That had a huge bend in the side when we looked at it.

The narrow boats operating on the Thurmaston gravel traffic were owned by a combination, mostly by Threefellow Carrying with a few privately operated but in in Threefellows Carrying livery. This was a hard driving contract with the boats only travelling a couple of miles and one lock between the loading conveyor and the discharge point, and reloading several times a day. This workload and the requirement for hard work is demonstrated by the overall condition of the boats involved, and pretty much like most in trade were treated by the Company as items of plant - leading to there being a few casualties. What this traffic did do was give a number of enthusiasts the opportunity to work with fully loaded narrow boats from the mid 1970's to the late 1980's, the main alternatives being camping boats (which I did for six years) or hotel boats. 

 

Many former commercial narrow boats have their sides pushed in about level with the mast, and these are often termed as being caused by 'cross winding' - and caused by going into locks (mainly narrow locks) a bit sideways, especially when loaded. This is then amplified by buttys running down the side as they often make contact with the motor in the same area.

 

Stamford was not part of the Threefellows Carrying concern, but was on the lime juice traffic pretty much until it ended, initially with British Waterways Board and then with Tam and Di Murrell 

[Richard Carter]

Certainly when I was steering campers from Foxton in the mid 80s the Threefellows fleet was a byword for the abuse of old long-distance working boats. I sort of envied them getting the loaded experience, as pete h says, but it was a slog, with little you could take any real pride in. The contract would have been better served by pusher tugs and hoppers, you could even have had one tug above and one below, and only worked the hoppers through the lock. But I guess the old long distance boats were easier to come by when they started up.

[Dav and Pen]

They did use these 2 short boats which they brought in. As Pete says most of the damage was done by the unloading grab but presumably it paid well.

[pete harrison]

Here is something I have probably put on here before 

 

Narrow boats in Threefellows Carrying fleet. (not all at the same time and not in chronological order).

Motors.

APPLE (ex Fellows Morton & Clayton Ltd.) (camping boat but carried for last two years or so)

BEXHILL (ex G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. – Large Woolwich)

BLETCHLEY (ex G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. – Large Woolwich)

BUXTON (ex G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. – Large Woolwich)

CHISWICK (ex G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. – Large Woolwich) (also operated by private owner after being sold)

HALSALL (ex G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. – Large Northwich)

Buttys.

ABOYNE (ex G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. – Large Woolwich)

ARGUS (ex G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. – Small Woolwich)

BANBURY (ex G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. – Large Woolwich)

BRIGHTON (ex G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. – Large Woolwich)

DITTON (ex L.M.S.R., ex British Waterways Board)(camping boat)

TAURUS (ex G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. – Middle Northwich)

Wide boats in Threefellows Carrying fleet.  (Company and Private owners)

SHIRLEY (ex Leeds & Liverpool Canal ‘Short Boat’)

A38 (ex Leeds & Liverpool Canal ‘Short Boat’)

JUNE (ex Air & Calder)

SOAR

TESS

WYE (ex Leeds & Liverpool Canal ‘Short Boat’)

Private owners were able to put their narrow boats to work at Thurmaston. These include:

Motors.

WHITBY (ex G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. – Large Northwich)

PRINCE (ex Associated Canal Carriers Ltd. – Royalty Class)

Buttys.

PICTOR (ex G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. – Small Woolwich)

[pete harrison]

41 minutes ago, Richard Carter said:

The contract would have been better served by pusher tugs and hoppers, you could even have had one tug above and one below, and only worked the hoppers through the lock. But I guess the old long distance boats were easier to come by when they started up.

In its last carnation the Thurmaston gravel traffic was handled by push tugs and wide hoppers

[Richard Carter]

41 minutes ago, pete harrison said:

In its last carnation the Thurmaston gravel traffic was handled by push tugs and wide hoppers

Thanks, I didn't know that. Or I've forgotten. Most likely I didn't know, after moving away. Also didn't know about the short boats - I guess wide boats generally suffered less from the grabs.

[pete harrison]

1 minute ago, Richard Carter said:

Thanks, I didn't know that. Or I've forgotten. Most likely I didn't know, after moving away. Also didn't know about the short boats - I guess wide boats generally suffered less from the grabs.

The northern wide boats were used in the earlier days of this contract, and were all replaced by narrow boat pairs 

[Richard T]

On 11/05/2020 at 14:18, captain birdseye said:

I was looking through a box of old pictures and came across these. We met the gravel boats on the Soar whilst on holiday on Lindsey when she was being hired out as a camper from UCC in 1984

Just for completeness both of these photos were taken above Thurmaston lock

[Paddle]

On 11/05/2020 at 22:03, pete harrison said:

 'cross winding' 

Plenty of opportunity for getting cross whilst winding, depending on how silted the winding hole is and how unhelpful the wind is, how well your reverse works and how likely the engine is to stall inappropriately etc. But what is 'cross winding'?

[matty40s]

9 minutes ago, Paddle said:

Plenty of opportunity for getting cross whilst winding, depending on how silted the winding hole is and how unhelpful the wind is, how well your reverse works and how likely the engine is to stall inappropriately etc. But what is 'cross winding'?

Where you use the motor to push the butty round, or if more than one pair, a motor to force a other motor around.

In those days it wasnt done with fenders and tick over either.

 

The other thing Pete refers to is going into a lock a bit sideways when fully loaded. This was to keep maximum speed as long as possible, and then basically steering NOT straight into the lock to reduce the speed quickly...using the jaws of the lock to impede the vessel.

Edited May 13, 2020 by matty40s

[Paddle]

Thanks Matty40s. The, um, interesting approach to a lock was very clearly described by Pete, but thank you for the cross-winding description. I'm sure we've all managed to approach a lock, um, interestingly in our time, but you'd need nerves of steel to do it repeatedly and deliberately. And, it has to be said, the conscience of a mass murderer.

[pete harrison]

37 minutes ago, matty40s said:

The other thing Pete refers to is going into a lock a bit sideways when fully loaded. This was to keep maximum speed as long as possible, and then basically steering NOT straight into the lock to reduce the speed quickly...using the jaws of the lock to impede the vessel.

I have only ever known 'cross winding' to mean going into a lock a bit sideways, whether loaded or unloaded, due to poor judgement or incompetence. I would never do this deliberately to slow a boat down as it can cause considerable damage.

 

Perhaps the term 'cross winding' is regional and it is known by other terms elsewhere

Edited May 13, 2020 by pete harrison

[matty40s]

10 hours ago, pete harrison said:

I have only ever known 'cross winding' to mean going into a lock a bit sideways, whether loaded or unloaded, due to poor judgement or incompetence. I would never do this deliberately to slow a boat down as it can cause considerable damage.

 

Perhaps the term 'cross winding' is regional and it is known by other terms elsewhere

I've had that explanation from two different historic boat owners, your version sounds a bit more plausible.

[barry adams]

"I would imagine that the reduction in strength caused by removing the woodwork wouldn't have helped, have always heard this sort of damage referred to as winded but thought it was more likely getting a turn wrong when loaded or crashed into. I can see how that swinging grab may have caused havoc though, i'd have been annoyed if my boats were treated like that! Was Stamford part of this traffic? That had a huge bend in the side when we looked at it."

 

As said Stamford was not on the Soar  but the Lime Juice. Stamford and Bude did the very last lime juice run for BWB.

The dent in the side was done by her having to be strapped to a halt very quickly. Di Murrel if she sees this might explain more.

The dent in the side never caused me any problems all the while I had her.

[captain birdseye]

11 hours ago, pete harrison said:

I have only ever known 'cross winding' to mean going into a lock a bit sideways, whether loaded or unloaded, due to poor judgement or incompetence. I would never do this deliberately to slow a boat down as it can cause considerable damage.

 

Perhaps the term 'cross winding' is regional and it is known by other terms elsewhere

Yours is the explanation of the term I have been told and always took as the correct meaning

[Dav and Pen]

Three Fellows at Boxmoor. Until the gravel job their boats where always smart and looked after, we did a few joint camping boat trips with them when either of us had really big parties.

[fanshaft]

On 12/05/2020 at 19:36, pete harrison said:

The northern wide boats were used in the earlier days of this contract, and were all replaced by narrow boat pairs 

I tried to comment on this but it doesn't seem to have appeared so apologies if you get it twice!

The Pontylue Sand & Ballast Co wanted to move 'as dug' ballast from a waterside pit to its Syston plant, also waterside, where the material would be graded into sand and gravel.  Using water transport would keep lorries off the local roads and please the planners.  Knowing nothing about canal transport in 1975 they sourced and purchased two Lincoln sized barges 'Tess' and 'Soar' from Furleys. Les Reid says two others ('Dunham' and 'Ranby')  went to Lincoln & Hull (Tomlinsons) and the last one in the fleet ('Ryton') went to Toomebridge in Northern Ireland to carry aggregate but was abandoned by 1997.  The two craft were brought by road from Lincoln (after discharging the final loads I assume)  to Syston.  Presumably at 74 ft 6in x 15ft 2 in they would be too big to pass through some of the Soar locks, but would pass through Thurmaston lock (if that was the intention). At least one was launched but it was found that so much ballast had to be carried to get under the bridges light they would not carry an economical load on the limited draft available ( a fully loaded Lincoln boat would be 5 ft draft) so they were abandoned, sold and cut up on the spot..

Birmingham & Midland were approached and brought a pair of narrow boats to Syston but Pontylue were not impressed by the small size and they were sent packing.  Wide boats had to be used! Knowing I had  a small fleet of L&L boats at my disposal Graham Wigley (B&MCCC) most kindly contacted me and suggested I approach Pontylue. I was invited to bring my own craft 'Wye' (Apollo Canal Carriers Ltd) to Syston and I loaded and carried a trial load of 40 tonnes to Leicester North and return on 8th and 9th December 1975. One option was to supply a waterside ready mix plant just above North lock but this didn't materialise for some reason.  Instead I was offered the opportunity to quote for the contract to move ballast from Thurmaston to Syston on the basis of providing four wide boats. I organised' Wye' (of course) plus 'Weaver' (Derek Bent), and 'Irwell' (Northern Counties Carriers) - being the fleet I informally managed. A fourth boat was needed to move the projected 4000 tonnes/week so I approached Threefellows Carrying and Herbert Wood readily agreed to provide 'Shirley' and offered to manage the contract locally for a fee.  This was accepted by Pontylue.  Then at the last minute the owners of 'Weaver' and 'Irwell' dropped out for reasons I've never understood as the earnings potential was very reasonable and at least short term better than what was on offer elsewhere.  The only other wide boat known to me was Chris Topp's 'June' (a Calder & Hebble sized ex &A&CN  fly boat) and Chris agreed to providing 'June'.  Pontylue also agreed (reluctantly) to trial a narrow boat ('Whitby') to boost capacity, and in truth we were unsure how successful 'June' would be.  All this was organised remarkably quickly by today's standards, with Martin Roe (Freight Marketing Manager), Ernest Eagle (Area Engineer) and Ralph Calverley (Section Inspector) from British Waterways being very helpful.  It was agreed that a small toll (2p a tonne I think) would provide a lock keeper but for some reason that didn't happen and I'm not sure the toll was paid!

'Wye' was the first to load on 3rd May 1976.  As envisaged 'June' didn't fare well and only limped on until November that year.  Additional narrow boats were brought in as a result - 'Buxton' and 'Banbury' from 14th June, 'Halsall' and 'Aboyne' from 6th to 27th August and then from November, and 'Pictor' from 11th December.   Tonnage per calendar month was around 12-13000 tonnes, but 15245 tonnes in June.

Having got the job under way it was agreed that the contract would pass to Threefellows Carrying from 1st January 1977 with myself retaining the income from 'Wye' (less a management fee) and a small retainer of 1p a tonne (I think) while 'Wye' was on the job. I could then concentrate on seeking other traffics..

I decided to remove 'Wye' for re-bottoming after a couple of years and while away the new Area Engineer decided that the Soar was not suitable for wide beam craft so 'Wye' and 'Shirley' could not work thereafter.  (The waterway dimensions to which it had to be maintained were laid down in the 1968 Transport Act but as this was a Cruising Waterway legally it did not apply to freight vessels. I don't recall BW ever using this argument at any other time).

So that's how narrow boats and Threefellows became involved with this traffic which finally ended in 1996. By that time the pit was below the lock and tugs and pans were being employed -latterly by Richard Barnett and Geoff Wheat (Northern Tug & barge Co) which, of course, would have been ideal from the start.

regards David L

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by fanshaft
additional info

[Stilllearning]

51 minutes ago, fanshaft said:

I tried to comment on this but it doesn't seem to have appeared so apologies if you get it twice!

The Pontylue Sand & Ballast Co wanted to move 'as dug' ballast from a waterside pit to its Syston plant, also waterside, where the material would be graded into sand and gravel.  Using water transport would keep lorries off the local roads and please the planners.  Knowing nothing about canal transport in 1975 they sourced and purchased two Lincoln sized barges 'Tess' and 'Soar' from Furleys. Les Reid says two others ('Dunham' and 'Ranby')  went to Lincoln & Hull (Tomlinsons) and the last one in the fleet ('Ryton') went to Toomebridge in Northern Ireland to carry aggregate but was abandoned by 1997.  The two craft were brought by road from Lincoln (after discharging the final loads I assume)  to Syston.  Presumably at 74 ft 6in x 15ft 2 in they would be too big to pass through some of the Soar locks, but would pass through Thurmaston lock (if that was the intention). At least one was launched but it was found that so much ballast had to be carried to get under the bridges light they would not carry an economical load on the limited draft available ( a fully loaded Lincoln boat would be 5 ft draft) so they were abandoned, sold and cut up on the spot..

Birmingham & Midland were approached and brought a pair of narrow boats to Syston but Pontylue were not impressed by the small size and they were sent packing.  Wide boats had to be used! Knowing I had  a small fleet of L&L boats at my disposal Graham Wigley (B&MCCC) most kindly contacted me and suggested I approach Pontylue. I was invited to bring my own craft 'Wye' (Apollo Canal Carriers Ltd) to Syston and I loaded and carried a trial load of 40 tonnes to Leicester North and return on 8th and 9th December 1975. One option was to supply a waterside ready mix plant just above North lock but this didn't materialise for some reason.  Instead I was offered the opportunity to quote for the contract to move ballast from Thurmaston to Syston on the basis of providing four wide boats. I organised' Wye' (of course) plus 'Weaver' (Derek Bent), and 'Irwell' (Northern Counties Carriers) - being the fleet I informally managed. A fourth boat was needed to move the projected 4000 tonnes/week so I approached Threefellows Carrying and Herbert Wood readily agreed to provide 'Shirley' and offered to manage the contract locally for a fee.  This was accepted by Pontylue.  Then at the last minute the owners of 'Weaver' and 'Irwell' dropped out for reasons I've never understood as the earnings potential was very reasonable and at least short term better than what was on offer elsewhere.  The only other wide boat known to me was Chris Topp's 'June' (a Calder & Hebble sized ex &A&CN  fly boat) and Chris agreed to providing 'June'.  Pontylue also agreed (reluctantly) to trial a narrow boat ('Whitby') to boost capacity, and in truth we were unsure how successful 'June' would be.  All this was organised remarkably quickly by today's standards, with Martin Roe (Freight Marketing Manager), Ernest Eagle (Area Engineer) and Ralph Calverley (Section Inspector) from British Waterways being very helpful.  It was agreed that a small toll (2p a tonne I think) would provide a lock keeper but for some reason that didn't happen and I'm not sure the toll was paid!

'Wye' was the first to load on 3rd May 1976.  As envisaged 'June' didn't fare well and only limped on until November that year.  Additional narrow boats were brought in as a result - 'Buxton' and 'Banbury' from 14th June, 'Halsall' and 'Aboyne' from 6th to 27th August and then from November, and 'Pictor' from 11th December.   Tonnage per calendar month was around 12-13000 tonnes, but 15245 tonnes in June.

Having got the job under way it was agreed that the contract would pass to Threefellows Carrying from 1st January 1977 with myself retaining the income from 'Wye' (less a management fee) and a small retainer of 1p a tonne (I think) while 'Wye' was on the job. I could then concentrate on seeking other traffics..

I decided to remove 'Wye' for re-bottoming after a couple of years and while away the new Area Engineer decided that the Soar was not suitable for wide beam craft so 'Wye' and 'Shirley' could not work thereafter.  (The waterway dimensions to which it had to be maintained were laid down in the 1968 Transport Act but as this was a Cruising Waterway legally it did not apply to freight vessels. I don't recall BW ever using this argument at any other time).

So that's how narrow boats and Threefellows became involved with this traffic which finally ended in 1996. By that time the pit was below the lock and tugs and pans were being employed -latterly by Richard Barnett and Geoff Wheat (Northern Tug & barge Co) which, of course, would have been ideal from the start.

regards David L

 

 

 

Many thanks for his interesting and informative posting, it is exactly what makes this forum so worthwhile.

[Pluto]

One of Roger Lorenz's photos of Wye when on the Soar.