Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
alan_fincher

Stewart & Lloyds - Tug No 2

Featured Posts

Having seen those superb pictures of Vesta, which was once a Stewart & Lloyds tug, I was reminded that I had snapped a different boat at the Halesowen tube works.

 

This is "Tug No 2", and the photograph is dated circa 1975.

 

I believe it's GUCCCo "Small Woolwich" Algol, but perhaps someone can confirm.

 

Note that much of Stewart & Lloyds day boat fleet seems to be wooden, although they had definitely been disposing of iron or composite boats long before this date.

 

I think almost no trace remains of the tube works, but I've not been back yet to check.

 

Stewart__Lloyds_1.jpg

 

Stewart__Lloyds_2.jpg

 

Anybody got a recent shot of her ? I assume the "cruiser stern" has probably been dispensed with!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having seen those superb pictures of Vesta, which was once a Stewart & Lloyds tug, I was reminded that I had snapped a different boat at the Halesowen tube works.

 

This is "Tug No 2", and the photograph is dated circa 1975.

 

I believe it's GUCCCo "Small Woolwich" Algol, but perhaps someone can confirm.

 

Note that much of Stewart & Lloyds day boat fleet seems to be wooden, although they had definitely been disposing of iron or composite boats long before this date.

 

I think almost no trace remains of the tube works, but I've not been back yet to check.

 

Stewart__Lloyds_1.jpg

 

Stewart__Lloyds_2.jpg

 

Anybody got a recent shot of her ? I assume the "cruiser stern" has probably been dispensed with!

 

Hi,

 

Yes Stewarts and Lloyds Tug Number 2 was the former GUCCCo 'little woolwich' motor Algol. There are a few photos below of her at the Stewarts and Lloyds gathering in May 2007, she was restored by Dennis Cooper in 1986 and now moors on the lower Grand Union, (i think)

 

DSC01423.jpg

DSC01422.jpg

DSC01453.jpg

 

Kind Regards

Matt Parrott

Sickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this on youTube

 

Quite a nice 5 minutes worth of a gathering of the S&L tugs on the original site.

 

Mostly stills - but also some video, including Bolinders & Nationals

 

 

Edit:

 

Seems I cross posted with Matt.

 

Thanks for those excellent shots.

 

So that long rear deck has been lost then.

 

Actually I didn't think it looked too bad, although a bit reminiscent of the Wyvern Shipping middle Northwich conversions!....

 

Best wishes,

 

Alan

Edited by alan_fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was delighted to find Stewarts & Lloyds Tug No 2 on 27th August 2014 at Coxes Lock on the River Wey Navigation. The owner is keen on the boat's history.

 

Had intended to include some photos here, but this is my first post and it is not clear to me how to do that.

 

Greg Martin.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask - how many Sickles are there?

 

I believe only one.

 

Sickle Built by W J Yarwoods - Length 12.192 metres ( 40 feet ) - Beam 2.134 metres ( 7 feet ) - Draft 0.914 ( 3 feet ). Metal hull, power of 33 BHP. Registered with Canal & River Trust number 501286 as a Powered. Last registration recorded on Wednesday 22nd May 2013.

 

 

(Unless you can trace the 31' 6" cut out of "Sickle" in 1942 still extant in another boat!).

 

Some pictures of "Sickle" sharing locks with "Tug No 2" from 2012

 

IMG_2122.JPG

 

IMG_2129.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask - how many Sickles are there?

One, Matt Parrott is a former owner. We bought Sickle in 2011.

Matt's post is from 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I ask was in post 2

 

"Kind Regards
Matt Parrott
Sickle"

 

Ok thanks Catrin - our posts crossed and of course I never picked up the date - bit of a coincidence! smile.png

 

ET correct Catrins name.

Edited by mark99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Yes Stewarts and Lloyds Tug Number 2 was the former GUCCCo 'little woolwich' motor Algol. There are a few photos below of her at the Stewarts and Lloyds gathering in May 2007, she was restored by Dennis Cooper in 1986 and now moors on the lower Grand Union, (i think)

 

DSC01423.jpg

DSC01422.jpg

DSC01453.jpg

 

Kind Regards

Matt Parrott

Sickle

Sorry, just for the record, she wasn't "restored by Dennis Cooper".

My brother in law bought her from Stewarts and LLoyds, and had Dennis do some limited hull repairs. She was then taken to my brother in law's farm and, over quite a few years, he restored her fully, including a new elm bottom, cabin (with conventional length counter), and re-built the National. It was a massive undertaking that, even after all these years, still reflects my brother in law's skills and perseverance in doing a proper job.

Despite being given the facts, the "restored by Dennis Cooper" myth was, for whatever reason, evidently invented by the person my brother in law sold it to, and in turn this appears to be the story repeated by the current owner. This fairy tale rightly causes my brother in law to foam at the mouth, but whereas he's too much of a gentleman to become embroiled in unseemly discussions on the internet, I'm not, so this is to set the record straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tug no 2 looks lovely, and I am loathe to criticise people who pour far more love (and money) into such boats than I ever could, but...

She doesn't look like she did in working days, the cruiser stern in particular was rather distinctive, and I'll guess a lot more practical on a tug that only ever did a couple of hundred yards at a time

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Tug no 2 looks lovely, and I am loathe to criticise people who pour far more love (and money) into such boats than I ever could, but...

She doesn't look like she did in working days, the cruiser stern in particular was rather distinctive, and I'll guess a lot more practical on a tug that only ever did a couple of hundred yards at a time

 

Remember she is originally a GUCCCo boat and I would say looks no less like she did in working days than the likes of Sextans, Sudbury, Thea and Enceladus.

They are all genuine historic boats and they all look superb. Is it an issue that none of them look like they did in 'working' days?

There is a genuine argument that the current style of Tug No 2 is an amalgamation of various phases of her working life. The important point for me is that the restoration of a historic boat balances the characteristics of the original with the current purpose of the boat. It's up to the owner to determine the balance between originality and practicality to suit their requirements. These are boats with a modern purpose rather than museum pieces and that's a good thing in my view.

The restorer of Tug No 2 has got it spot on. One of the most distinctive and beautiful boats on the system.

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing with your sentiments JP, I guess as much as anything I'm saying that if I didn't know she was Tug no2 I might not immediately work it out.

As I said, these people pour far more love and money in that I could, even a 45 year old ex-hire boat test my limits! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's that - and how many folk know what she looked like when working as a tug with a longer back deck?

A well proportioned and useful craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/06/2017 at 08:04, magpie patrick said:

She doesn't look like she did in working days, the cruiser stern in particular was rather distinctive, and I'll guess a lot more practical on a tug that only ever did a couple of hundred yards at a time

I think it is certainly true that by the end the surviving tug(s) were confined to just the bit around the works and Hawne basin. AFAIK Tug No 2 (Algol) was the last at work.

However certainly prior to that some of the S&L tugs certainly worked further afield, and there are photos of at least one of the purpose built Yarwoods examples towing joeys loaded with coal through the tunnel, presumably to supply it to the tube works.

As I doubt there was ever enough work to keep up to 5 tugs busy just at the works, it seems reasonable to assume that any of them once ventured further afield. presumably to at least one of the collieries.

(As an aside the Yarwoods tugs have a considerably longer rear deck that Tug number 2 when working there.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

I think it is certainly true that by the end the surviving tug(s) were confined to just the bit around the works and Hawne basin. AFAIK Tug No 2 (Algol) was the last at work.

However certainly prior to that some of the S&L tugs certainly worked further afield, and there are photos of at least one of the purpose built Yarwoods examples towing joeys loaded with coal through the tunnel, presumably to supply it to the tube works.

As I doubt there was ever enough work to keep up to 5 tugs busy just at the works, it seems reasonable to assume that any of them once ventured further afield. presumably to at least one of the collieries.

(As an aside the Yarwoods tugs have a considerably longer rear deck that Tug number 2 when working there.)

I've seen pictured of tugs all over the BCN - I had assumed that they give rise to the "tug style" of boat with much lower gunnels than a conventional narrow boat. I don't know enough to know whether these would have been S&L, I suspect in many cases not.

I'm intrigued by the "cruiser stern" as to how it arose (and I rather like the appearance of it). My first thoughts were that a back cabin wasn't needed so at some point it was decked over, but the stern isn't long enough for that. It almost looks as if the back cabin is in the right place but the stern has been extended, but that doesn't seem likely either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, magpie patrick said:

I'm intrigued by the "cruiser stern" as to how it arose (and I rather like the appearance of it). My first thoughts were that a back cabin wasn't needed so at some point it was decked over, but the stern isn't long enough for that. It almost looks as if the back cabin is in the right place but the stern has been extended, but that doesn't seem likely either. 

You are looking at things the wrong way around. It isn't the 'cruiser stern' that is an aberration in boat design, it is the cabin that interferes with the tiller arc and steerer that working boats had

Think of Cruiser as in Royal Navy, not cabin cruiser. It is a large open area with easy access to the functional fittings - like the tiller and towing hooks. Much easier for the steerer to work the boat and it's train

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I've seen pictured of tugs all over the BCN - I had assumed that they give rise to the "tug style" of boat with much lower gunnels than a conventional narrow boat. I don't know enough to know whether these would have been S&L, I suspect in many cases not.

I'm intrigued by the "cruiser stern" as to how it arose (and I rather like the appearance of it). My first thoughts were that a back cabin wasn't needed so at some point it was decked over, but the stern isn't long enough for that. It almost looks as if the back cabin is in the right place but the stern has been extended, but that doesn't seem likely either. 

 

I don't think there is any question that Tug No 2's hull has been interfered with other than the removal of around 31' 6" from the original carrting boat.

If we compare

Stewart__Lloyds_1.jpg

with

DSC01423.jpg

and then look at where the line of double rivets just forward of the counter sits, I would say it is very roughly 18" rearward of the cabin in the tug decked version, and maybe a similar amount forward of it in its current state.  One could measure the images, and be more accurate but it seems to me the back of the cabin sat maybe 3' further forward in S&L days than it does now.

One can only guess, but judging by the position of the large opening roof box, I would say the engine was always in it's "correct" position, but that what in a working boat would be an 8' back cabin has been reduced to more like 5 feet.  Obviously new "accommodation" of some kind was introduced into the larger cabin forward of the engine room, although this would I feel sure have been for day use, rather than sleeping.

S&L only had 5 tugs, I think.  The two converted from working boats had conventional "Star" class hulls 4' 2" deep, whereas the purpose built ones had lower hull sides and hence decks closer to the water.

Edited by alan_fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RLWP said:

You are looking at things the wrong way around. It isn't the 'cruiser stern' that is an aberration in boat design, it is the cabin that interferes with the tiller arc and steerer that working boats had

Think of Cruiser as in Royal Navy, not cabin cruiser. It is a large open area with easy access to the functional fittings - like the tiller and towing hooks. Much easier for the steerer to work the boat and it's train

Richard

 

2 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

I don't think there is any question that Tug No 2's hull has been interered with other than the removal of aroung 31' 6" from the original carrting boat.

If we compare (two photos that MP has removed)

and then look at where the line of double rivets just forward of the counter sits, I would say it is very roughly 18" rearward of the cabin in the tug decked version, and maybe a similar amount forward of it in its current state.  One could measure the images, and be more accurate but it seems to me the back of the cabin sat maybe 3' further forward in S&L days than it does now.

One can only guess, but judging by the position of the large opening roof box, I would say the engine was always in it's "correct" position, but that what in a working boat would be an 8' back cabin has been reduced to more like 5 feet.  Obviously new "accommodation" of some kind was introduced into the larger cabin forward of the engine room, although this would I feel sure have been for day use, rather than sleeping.

S&L only had 5 tugs, I think.  The two converted from working boats had conventional "Star" class hulls 4' 2" deep, whereas the purpose built ones had lower hull sides and hence decks closer to the water.

Two very interesting responses that explain both the why and the how. 

Richard, I'd never thought of it quite like that before, but it's pretty well spot on that only narrow boats had a cabin in the way of the tiller, and one only does that if space is at an absolute premium.

Alan, my only thought had been that, in converting to a tug it was possible a new counter had been added, but I figured it unlikely and your explanation clarifies everything.

I'm not that hot on boats - I tend to look at the infrastructure more - but doesn't mean I don't find them fascinating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Two very interesting responses that explain both the why and the how. 

Richard, I'd never thought of it quite like that before, but it's pretty well spot on that only narrow boats had a cabin in the way of the tiller, and one only does that if space is at an absolute premium.

Alan, my only thought had been that, in converting to a tug it was possible a new counter had been added, but I figured it unlikely and your explanation clarifies everything.

I'm not that hot on boats - I tend to look at the infrastructure more - but doesn't mean I don't find them fascinating

What I don't actually know is whether Tug No 2 always carried that cabin in her S&L days.

Her actual history is that (as Algol) she was sold off by the GUCCCo in 1940 to the Stanton and Staveley Ironworks, Ilkeston, Derbyshire as a full length boat, where she was apparently "Stanton Number 1", (or Number 51, sources differ!), in their fleet.  Only when they sold to S&L in 1947 was she shortened to 40 feet.  It is quite possible of course that this when the modified cabin was added, but equally it may not be - Vesta has a similar history, but always retained a conventional working boat arrangement for back cabin and engine room.  Perhaps over time "Tug no 2's" original cabin needed replacement, and it was only then that the revised arrangement was added?

Does anybody know, please?

Edited by alan_fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

What I don't actually know is whether Tug No 2 always carried that cabin in her S&L days.

Her actual history is that (as Algol) she was sold off by the GUCCCo in 1940 to the Stanton and Staveley Ironworks, Ilkeston, Derbyshire as a full length boat, where she was apparently "Stanton Number 1", (or Number 51, sources differ!), in their fleet.  Only when they sold to S&L in 1947 was she shortened to 40 feet.  It is quite possible of course that this when the modified cabin was added, but equally it may not be - Vesta has a similar history, but always retained a conventional working boat arrangement for back cabin and engine room.  Perhaps over time "Tug no 2's" original cabin needed replacement, and it was only then that the revised arrangement was added?

Does anybody know, please?

As I described previously (see post no. 8 in this thread), my brother in law bought and restored her in the '80s and, in doing so, re-built the cabin to its original GUCCC proportions. As purchased by him from S and L, the longer counter led down to an open area, with no internal bulkheads and benches for the crew, together with an open engine hole. The Perkins P3 that lived there was removed and the National from the Josher "Carp" replaced it. The back cabin was then built to a more conventional layout. "Carp" also provided the swan's neck, in place of the crude version that can be seen in the photo of her at S and L. Happy to answer any further queries, if I can.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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.