Tree Class motors of the Severn & Canal Carrying Company

[RLWP]

High gunwales, 90 degree chine angle, bluff bows and short front deck; all leading to greater hold capacity

 

I wonder if there was an increase in capacity from being welded rather than rivetted. No overlaps and rivets should mean less weight and more displacement for cargo.

 

Richard

[alan_fincher]

Now we have established which boat is which, does anyone know how their design enabled them to carry more load?

 

Richard

They had very deep hull sides, so could exploit the greater depths available on the Severn.

 

Had they been going down the Grand Union or the Oxford, they, like say the Royalty boats, would in practice have been limited in their load by the depth of the canal, not the point at which the gunwales go under.

 

They were also welded, rather than riveted construction. This is generally lighter, because plates are butted side to side, and don't need a "joining piece" overlaid at the back. (You also avoid the weight of the rivets.

 

I suspect that having bluffer lines fore and aft, almost certainly with not as long or fine a swim as on other working boats would mean that you could get a greater load on for each extra inch added to the draught.

 

They also had very large helium balloons attached to help reduce their draught.

Edited June 11, 2009 by alan_fincher

[pete harrison]

Now we have established which boat is which, does anyone know how their design enabled them to carry more load?

 

Richard

 

Make of this what you will, all from original B.C.N. gauge tables:

 

ASH - 38 tons @ 50.80'' draught = 0.34'' freeboard

 

OAK - 38 tons @ 50.52'' draught = 0.62'' freeboard

 

ELM - 38 tons @ 50.86'' draught = 0.41'' freeboard

 

FIR - 38 tons @ 50.87'' draught = 0.20'' freeboard

 

PINE - 37 tons @ 50.63'' draught = 0.82'' freeboard

 

BEECH - 38 tons @ 50.72'' draught = 0.50'' freeboard

 

ALDER - 37 tons @ 50.95'' draught = 0.35'' freeboard

 

WILLOW - 38 tons @ 51.20'' draught = 0.09'' freeboard

 

and for comparison:

 

VICTORIA - 42 tons @ 60.81'' draught = 0.44'' freeboard ('Royalty' type narrow boat)

 

BADSEY - 39 tons @ 57.12'' draught = 0.63'' freeboard (Large Woolwich motor)

 

Proof I think that a Severn & Canal Carrying Company Ltd. welded iron composite motor could carry the same weight as a riveted steel Large Woolwich motor for about 6'' or so less draught.

 

Now I am fairly sure that when boats were gauged they were not loaded down to a fraction of an inch (as shown above). I believe they were loaded to 24 tons with calibrated weights by which time an average drop per ton had been established. From 24 tons to full load was then done by calculation. Although I have completed a massive amount of research into gaugeing I am happy to be corrected if I have this wrong (but I will want evidence !).

[Radiomariner]

Is it possible that having the cabin forward of the engine not only allowed greater "height" within the cabin, but also allowed it (the cabin) to be "shorter" thus allowing more cargo space? Just a thought

This has been a very interesting thread

Edited June 12, 2009 by Radiomariner

[Tam & Di]

ASH - did not pass to 'British Waterways' and was a house boat at Cowley by the early 1960's. This is the full length boat currently at Norton Canes.

 

To flesh out its history: Nigel Carter who owned Ash at Benbow Bridge had a penchant for big (and dare I say it, rather ugly) craft. He subsequently owned the George and Mary built by the Uxbridge Steel Barrel Company. He bought Ash from Lord St. Davids, among other things founder of the Pirate Club at Camden. I think there are others on this forum who might have knowledge of how St. Davids acquired it. We sold it in the late 60s on behalf of the woman who bought it from Nigel, and it went onto the Basingstoike Canal.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Tam & Di

[RLWP]

Make of this what you will, all from original B.C.N. gauge tables:

 

(snip)

 

FIR - 38 tons @ 50.87'' draught = 0.20'' freeboard

 

(snip)

 

Hi Pete. Can you explain what these figures mean please? Is this suggesting that if Fir was loaded to 38 Tons she would be left with the gunnels less than 1/4" out of the water?

 

Richard

[pete harrison]

Hi Pete. Can you explain what these figures mean please? Is this suggesting that if Fir was loaded to 38 Tons she would be left with the gunnels less than 1/4" out of the water?

 

Richard

 

That is exactly what it suggests but I do not think that the B.C.N. Company actually gauged them that deep, hence my last paragraph !

 

"Now I am fairly sure that when boats were gauged they were not loaded down to a fraction of an inch (as shown above). I believe they were loaded to 24 tons with calibrated weights by which time an average drop per ton had been established. From 24 tons to full load was then done by calculation."

 

The B.C.N. gauge table for FIR (B.C.N. 1853 - 15 May 1935) is the same as just about every other B.C.N. gauge table in that the average drop per ton is only marked at 4 ton intervals (i.e. they did not take a measurement after each one ton weight was put into the boat but after 4 tons were put into the boat and then devided the figure by four to get an average drop per ton). From the table B.C.N. 1853 these are:

 

0 - 4 tons = average drop 1.01'' per ton (34.58'' average freeboard @ 4 tons)

5 - 8 tons = average drop 1.01'' per ton (30.54'' average freeboard @ 8 tons)

9 - 12 tons = average drop 1.01'' per ton (26.50'' average freeboard @ 12 tons)

13 - 16 tons = average drop 1.02'' per ton (22.46'' average freeboard @ 16 tons)

17 - 20 tons = average drop 1.01'' per ton (18.38'' average freeboard @ 20 tons)

21 - 24 tons = average drop 1.01'' per ton (14.34'' average freeboard @ 24 tons)

 

So I think that this is the point at which they put no more calibrated weights into the boat and continued by calculation.

 

The tabular section of gauge table B.C.N. 1853 continues as:

 

25 - 28 tons = average drop 1.01'' per ton (10.30'' average freeboard @ 28 tons)

29 - 32 tons = average drop 1.01'' per ton (6.26'' average freeboard @ 32 tons)

33 - 36 tons = average drop 1.01'' per ton (2.22'' average freeboard @ 36 tons)

37 tons = average drop 1.01'' per ton (1.21'' average freeboard @ 37 tons)

38 tons = average drop 1.01'' per ton (0.20'' average freeboard @ 38 tons)

 

If another average drop of 1.01'' per ton was added (by calculation) then FIR would be under water, possibly not ideal !

[RLWP]

That is exactly what it suggests but I do not think that the B.C.N. Company actually gauged them that deep, hence my last paragraph !

 

(snip)

 

Thanks Pete. That's amazing! I didn't realise they gauged boats to the nearest 0.01"

 

I guess that the toll keeper would have to be far less accurate than that.

 

Richard

Edited June 12, 2009 by RLWP

[Pluto]

Thanks Pete. That's amazing! I didn't realise they gauged boats to the nearest 0.01"

 

I guess that the toll keeper would have to be far less accurate than that.

 

Richard

On the Leeds & Liverpool they stopped using gauging quite early, either we are more law-abiding in the north, or they realised there was no chance of getting the correct weight with all them boatmen around. The main gauging dock was in Liverpool, and this disappeared when they filled in much of the old terminal basin around 1880. There could have been a gauging dock in Yorkshire as well, and if you go to Apperley Bridge, there are large stone weights with iron rings alongside the towpath roadway up to the maintenance yard. However, these could also have been used by the local boatyard to load boats immediately after launching to check for leaks.

 

They still gauge boats on the continent, as I found on arriving at Linz Steel Works - the former Adolf Hitler Werk - on a friend's boat with 1300 tonnes of iron ore from Rotterdam.

[carlt]

I thought I'd post John Knill's description of the S&CCC boats:

 

They were strange craft, built like a biscuit tin, with all welded hulls. They were built of thin plate, with little internal structure and so were largely corrugated, for strength. They had virtually no tumblehome at the bows. Also the engine room was right aft with the boatman's cabin forward of it. This was not the most satisfactory arrangement for comfortable living. It was awkward for cooking between locks and for looking after the cabin stove and so forth. Fortunately the counter was of steel, for if it had been wooden as usual it would have been difficult to keep it clean and free of oil. I could not understand how this design had originated. It was a strange arrangement and I could only think that it must have been produced by somebody without much knowledge of working boats.

[alan_fincher]

Interesting, although presumably not entirely accurate.

 

The metalwork was iron, I believe, and not steel, so the counter was presumably the same.

 

Hard to see how you describe a hull as "all welded", when the bottom is wood and bolted on. (The bottoms surely count as part of the hull ?).

 

The only argument I can see for the reverse cabin layout seems to be increased headroom, as no prop-shaft needs to pass under.

 

The other failure in the design of these boats appears to have been the use of the single cylinder Petters not actually ably to cope fully with the demands of the river.

[New hope]

These boats were equpped with 9hp Petters because they were intended to work singly. If the river was high they would hang onto one of the tugs or hitch a free tow behind a tanker. They had enough power for normal river conditions. Remember, Josher's 9hp motors worked on the Trent, Soar and Weaver

I don't think anyone, except the designer, can explain the reversal of the traditional position of the cabin and engine room. The boatmen disliked it and it was clearly unsafe if the crew had to exit the cabin quickly in an emergency. The long holds were usual in all S&C boats to provide maximum hold space for timber and other light, bulky cargoes.

The last of these boats in use for carrying could take 23 tons up the Shropshire Union as against 20 tons on a Josher.

The two bought by Ballinger carried 23 tons of crumb between Frampton and Bournville. Tonnage was limited by the bulky nature of the cargo. They would probably, even in 1960 have carried 25 or 26 tons of heavy goods on the W&B.

On the subject of BCN gauging, I had two boats weighed at Tipton and can confirm that weights up to 24 tons were placed in the boat and the rest was done by calculation.

.

[luctor et emergo]

Living on a boat with a rearmost engine room, and cabin in front, I can tell you that on a typical working day, I don't need to get through the cabin, or shimmy along the gunnel, to get into the engine room. The head room in my cabin, at close to 7', makes living a lot less claustrophobic. Depending on your preference, standing directly over the aircooled SR3 , rather than it being in a room 8 feet away, is either bliss, or purgatory..

In the winter, the warmth from the engine is much better at keeping me warm on the back, than a small stove would do, and the heat from the engine doesn't require the use of coal. My stove is only on when I'm spending the night on the boat, saving me a lot of coal.

My cabin has two large side hatches, which means getting in and out is not the problem as it might have been on the Severners. But in practise, I simply enter and exit through the engine room.

 

Edit to add, perhaps the engine relocation to the reahelped balancing the trim, adding more weight further back?

Edited July 31, 2012 by luctor et emergo

[Tam & Di]

Thank's Bill.

 

Very informative, and sounds very plausible, as whilst I thought what's pictured has a Severn boat tradmark or two at the front end, the counter didn't really ring true. (The Wyvern Shipping ones were not semi-circular, but quite "extended" towards the rear).

 

I'm interested in what Baldock can tell us, but it starts to sound like this is at least the front of a Severn boat Ash.

 

But then Sarah believes she has Ash at Norton Canes ? There weren't two..........

 

Curiouser & curiouser.........

 

 

Mike C's parents lived on Ash at Bulldog Bridge (Benbow Way) moorings at Cowley Middx from the early 60s. They bought it from Lady Muck's partner's grandfather. They sold it when they moved to Burscough mid 60s? with the Uxbridge Steel Barrel pair George and Mary to a new job up there.

 

I never did manage to sort out why there appeared to be two Severners called Ash, but I guess the one at Denham will be the one we knew at Cowley. Mike C can fill you in with greater detail if he reads this.

 

(Whoops - I see that the last couple of mails simply reopen a thread from 2009, and I gave this same information at post #55)

Edited July 31, 2012 by Tam & Di

[carlt]

(Whoops - I see that the last couple of mails simply reopen a thread from 2009, and I gave this same information at post #55)

Always nice to see that, 3 years on, the memory is still functioning as well as it was back then.

[Derek R.]

It's when you repeat the post the following day you need to start worrying.

 

Repetition is a good way to learn, and the quickest way to empty a bar.

 

[Mike C]

Mike C's parents lived on Ash at Bulldog Bridge (Benbow Way) moorings at Cowley Middx from the early 60s. They bought it from Lady Muck's partner's grandfather. They sold it when they moved to Burscough mid 60s? with the Uxbridge Steel Barrel pair George and Mary to a new job up there.

 

I never did manage to sort out why there appeared to be two Severners called Ash, but I guess the one at Denham will be the one we knew at Cowley. Mike C can fill you in with greater detail if he reads this.

 

(Whoops - I see that the last couple of mails simply reopen a thread from 2009, and I gave this same information at post #55)

I believe that the one at Denham is NOT the 'Ash' but one of the others whose name was lost in the mist of time. As such the Denham Ash is named 'Ash 2' when the current owner was persuaded that it wasn’t the real thing. There are some distinguishing features that are unique to the conversion that my father completed that make the real Ash identifiable.

[pete harrison]

I believe that the one at Denham is NOT the 'Ash' but one of the others whose name was lost in the mist of time. As such the Denham Ash is named 'Ash 2' when the current owner was persuaded that it wasn’t the real thing. There are some distinguishing features that are unique to the conversion that my father completed that make the real Ash identifiable.

In post 28 of this thread I wrote:-

 

ASH - did not pass to 'British Waterways' and was a house boat at Cowley by the early 1960's. This is the full length boat currently at Norton Canes.

 

ALDER - passed to 'British Waterways' and was latterly used as a maintenance boat. Prior to being a maintenance boat ALDER was used in the 'British Waterways' North Eastern (Southern) Division carrying fleet and due to a duplication of names (F.M.C. Ltd. ALDER) had its name changed to ASH. This is listed in the Gloucester Health Register and dated 11 August 1950. When used as a maintenance boat this ASH was cut in two with the stern end becoming the push tug ASH 1 and the fore end becoming ASH 2. The tug ASH 1 is not currently known to me but ASH 2 was for sale in Waterways World June 1978 page 73 (52' powered by an Ocean 60 outdrive but no engine). This is when the current owner at Denham bought the boat and had the new counter stern fitted by Braunston Canal Services the same year.

 

so ASH 2's name is not "one of the others whose name was lost in the mist of time"

Edited August 7, 2012 by pete harrison

[Derek R.]

This sounds like the ASH that I knew from the early eighties, and which was owned by Roger Wakeham. He and John Pattle built/rebuilt the steel top using fuel tank materials, though the details of that are not precisely known, nor exactly when.

 

Digging through my odds and ends I find a few shots that include this ASH, as here at Stockton one Christmas - ASH is against the towpath, second lot of boats.

 

Here in Little Venice for New Year (I think), nearest the camera broadside on.

 

And in daylight, peeking in on the extreme right, the blunt fore end.

[Mike C]

 

ALDER - passed to 'British Waterways' and was latterly used as a maintenance boat. Prior to being a maintenance boat ALDER was used in the 'British Waterways' North Eastern (Southern) Division carrying fleet and due to a duplication of names (F.M.C. Ltd. ALDER) had its name changed to ASH. This is listed in the Gloucester Health Register and dated 11 August 1950. When used as a maintenance boat this ASH was cut in two with the stern end becoming the push tug ASH 1 and the fore end becoming ASH 2. The tug ASH 1 is not currently known to me but ASH 2 was for sale in Waterways World June 1978 page 73 (52' powered by an Ocean 60 outdrive but no engine). This is when the current owner at Denham bought the boat and had the new counter stern fitted by Braunston Canal Services the same year.

 

Thank you - I didnt know that, but it explains clearly why RW's craft is known as 'Ash 2.

[Max Sinclair]

In 'Anderton For Orders' there's mention of ...

 

"The attempts that some carriers made in the 1930s to improve productivity sometimes met with little approval from enthusiasts. Even Tom Rolt, who, as an engineer, should have known better, described the innovative Tree Class motors of the Severn & Canal Carrying Company as ugly and clumsy without mentioning the design had achieved 25% increase in carrying capacity over the more traditional type of boat."

 

(Pg 80)

 

What was the big innovation? How did they compare to their contemporaries that lead them to being described as 'ugly and clumsy'?

The engine was in the back cabin with shorter living accomodation and increased carrying capacity. Have a look at Oak in Gloucester Museum.

[Max Sinclair]

As far as I know.....

 

Good points...

 

They were fairly revolutionary in using a welded iron construction, (but composite wooden bottom), at a time when riveting was the norm, (they are contemporary with the GUCCCo "Town" and "Star" class boats, which were rivited).

They are very deep sided, allowing carriage of large loads, where depth of waterway permitsted

 

Bad Points.....

They only used somthing like a 9HP single cylinder engine, (Petter, possibly), so struggled to tow another boat for their intended use on the Severn.

They reversed the usual layout of boatmans cabin and engine, putting the engine up with the steerer, and causing access problems to the accommodation when loaded.

They are certainly functional, rather than elegant of pretty.

 

Wyvern Shipping Company worked two (shortened to about 54 feet), as hire boats in the 1970s, (by then renamed Bridget & Olive). In all honesty they were unsuitable, as, unloaded, the bows towered so high out of the water that you virtually needed a ladder to get on or off. (They actually had a ladder built in from the from well to the roof).

 

One has recently turned up, converted, down at Denham deep - Ash, that one is. An original one, Oak, I think, is at the National Waterways Museum at Gloucester Docks.

I saw Olive come up the Severn into Diglis in high flood with Lionel Tonks. When Denny Merril Lock Keeper asked him whuy the locks hadn't telephoned he said he came over the fields and missed them. A BIT FRIGTENING WITH BARBED WIRE FENCES.

[Black Ibis]

Having just bought the "Tree Class" Severner WILLOW, we are in the process of gathering what information there is about the boat and about the other "Tree Class" motors. This thread has been a very useful source! We're compiling the info on our blog:

 

History of:

Willow

Ash

 

Anything else anyone knows any of the other "Tree Class" motors would be most welcome!

We're also looking for any photos of them that exist too.

[alan_fincher]

Beech, ("Olive") when hired by "Catrin's" family for a holiday in 1969.

 

All photos copyright Phil Quick.

 

 

 

If I correctly remember the story, this young lady had just fallen in, but I'll not embarrass her by saying who it is!

 

Edited March 1, 2013 by alan_fincher

[pete harrison]

Having just bought the "Tree Class" Severner WILLOW, we are in the process of gathering what information there is about the boat and about the other "Tree Class" motors. This thread has been a very useful source! We're compiling the info on our blog:

 

Anything else anyone knows any of the other "Tree Class" motors would be most welcome!

I gave a potted history of all 8 Charles Hill & Sons Ltd. built 'Severners' in post number 28 of this thread, all of which came from my own records (not publications or the internet !).