Chertsey pics

[Derek R.]

I purchased a chemical toilet from the then well-known Thomas Foulkes in E17 when I bought Royalty 'Duke' in 1978. The chap behind the counter joked with me that it wasn't often that you could obtain full sanitary accomodation for three pounds fifty. It was, as you note, a heavily-galvanised ribbed 'drum', with a wire handle complete with wooden roller, and a nice one-piece wooden seat. A small container of Elsan Blue completed the facility. There was no provision for a vent pipe, nor, as I recall, any lid.

 

Memory lane:

 

 

Apart from the wooden lid, we have none for the drum - it would be useful. And no outlets for venting, so a different piece of kit to that seemingly fitted originally.

 

Derek

[alan_fincher]

Ah "Kerbau" the boat we had in the 1970s had something remarkably similar initially, but it did have a galvanised lid that sealed off the smells a bit more than just the seat and cover are going to. It was rather more unsavoury than the one pictured, (), so got replaced by the ubiquitous Elsan Bristol, in plastic.

 

As you say, absolutely no way of adding a vent to those galvanised cans, so it doesn't help solve the mystery, really.

 

Of course though, when I asked the question about "why vent in middle, if the loo is to one side of the engine room", I forgot the "funnel" bit of the argument. Of course if you wanted the vent up the funnel, it would have needed a few kinks in it.

 

I'll freely admit I can't think of other possible reasons for the extra "vent" that appears in that lovely footage. I still think it's a shame the film expects us to accept the boats have a proper load on, though!.

[pete harrison]

I think to dismiss the idea because of a lack of emptying points is to miss the point that these were modern craft with electric light and high speed diesel engines, and one can imagine someone saying "but surely you need to provide a toilet, this is 1935?". Then it was a matter of understanding that the trips only lasted three or four days and the bucket would last that long, and if it didn't there was always the entrenching tool (folding shovel) that was the norm in the early days of hire boats for digging a hole in the canal bank and tipping in the contents of the toilet. It might be frowned upon now, but it was the norm in the 1950s and 60s.

 

 

Steve

 

Well I shall continue to "dismiss the idea" until proven otherwise, not soley because of the lack of emptying facilities but that it just does not make any sense. I can only concede that my inferior knowledge and understanding of working narrow boats is "miss(ing) the point".

Edited July 16, 2010 by pete harrison

[antarmike]

Lokks very similar to the Elsan fitted to a Lancaster Bomber!

[Derek R.]

Get boaters together (especially over a meal), and inevitably the talk turns to 'toilets'.

 

A couple of questions;

When were chemical closet disposal points installed along the canal?

When were chemical closets first used on narrow boats? I suspect the 1930's.

 

I can see the possibility of charged buckets being emptied down convenient soil sewer manhole covers (our garden dog poop goes this way via a metal cover by the house), and this may well have been de-rigeur at places like Bulls Bridge, until such specialist facility were provided, which refers to question 1. There was always the Pub too, I'm sure that would receive usage.

 

On a horse boat with no engine room, would it not have been the 'norm' to use a gazunda, or enameled lidded bucket (Mum had one - though used for laundry) and dispose of it discretely a.s.a.p. either after dark into the water, or burying (the former sounds more likely). In the case of gentlemen, a pee in a can and over the side sounds likely, and I seem to recall that quicklime was in frequent use by certain bridgeholes at some tying up points, as that was used as a toilet (still is in some places - toilet, not the quicklime - though more by itinerent passers by). Again, the Pub was a regular - for withdrawals, and deposits.

 

If you were to bury, there seems less likely hood of waiting until the bucket was full as you would have to dig a bigger hole than for disposing of an individual lot. Similarly, an individual lot would more easily be 'lost' in the water, keep a sweeter bucket for the journey duration and no frequent 'excavating'. I wonder if the entrenchment tool was a cast-off from WW1, not something that would bring pleasant memories and more likely to have been in greater use with the hardy camping sort - or Boy Scouts camp.

 

Toilet paper - Dock, and Horse Chesnut leaves are a natural substitute, and cast off newspapers - may also have give the chance to show off some early reading skills. My Gran never bought toilet paper, always squares of newspaper torn up neatly - pierced with a nail in one corner, and hung on hairy string from a nail (it was a flush loo though, albeit outside - full width mahogany seat, and matching cistern cover - luxury!).

 

Vivid imagination - and recollection. All this raises the question as to why such a seemingly elaborate affair of pipes and vents would have been fitted, and how soon they may have been removed. It does rather sound like the result of a committee.

 

As an aside, with the influx of formerly land based inhabitants to the cut, holding tanks and pumped water became a 'must have'. A three gallon can of water will last one day if frugal, and the 174gal water tank on the Dutchman - one month. This was largely due to the pump being a hand operated one over the only sink, and six of seven dinghy rides with many containers. It's quite amazing how much water is wasted through an electric pump. And of course, one is not inclined to 'soil' the waters surrounding the boat at a long term mooring (apart from it being against the bye-laws.)

 

So might a 'committee' pushed for this 'good idea', and the boatmen disposed of it - leaving a legend for historians to ponder?

 

Derek

 

A Lancaster with Elsan??? A leg-pull most surely!

 

There's a replica Lancaster cockpit - accurate down to the size of rivets used - at the Pitsone Farm Museum, and one of the talking points is a tube specifically used for the expulsion of crew urine. They may have used their pants on occassions, but apart from placing some additional 'load' on a bomb, I can't imagine the aircraft payload being lumbered with an Elsan, nor of the consequences of spillage due to 'turbulence' - have you evidence Mike?

 

Derek

[Paul H]

Well I shall continue to "dismiss the idea" until proven otherwise, not soley because of the lack of emptying facilities but that it just does not make any sense. I can only concede that my inferior knowledge and understanding of working narrow boats is "miss(ing) the point".

I don't think there can be any denying that there is a fitting (or remains of) on the roof of Grand Union motor boats by the National/RN exhaust outlet and I am told that plans exist showing the trunking of a toilet vent pipe although I have never personally seen them.

 

What I have seen (but for the life of me I can't find one now) are pictures of a toilet fitted with a "chimney" looking at first sight like a large pot bellied stove. I believe these were designed for nautical, military and domestic use. I don't know if they were chemical toilets though - many cottages used a bucket in a container (or built in wooden box) placing a quantity of ash over each "usage" and there is no reason to believe the intended Grand Union ones were any different.

 

Were they ever actually fitted though? Harland Wolff produced boats with a number of design faults (framing round the cabin so you couldn't get the engine room roof off, continuous cants and closed weeps on the handrails which trapped water, large wrap-around tip-cats etc.) as well as unpopular features like non-trad butty two panel doors and the liner-style chimneys which didn't last long. The boats were built at such a rate that design flaws of the small woolwich were still being incorporated into the large boats. So even if the boatmen immediately vetoed the idea of "plumbed in" toilets the metal-bashers at north Woolwich (and Northwich for that matter) would still have kept to the GU blueprints and put in the roof fitting.

 

Which is why if you go to someone like Steve Priest for a replice GU boat you'll get an extraneous blanked-off hole in the engine room roof.

 

Paul H

Edited July 17, 2010 by Paul H

[carlt]

I still think it's a shame the film expects us to accept the boats have a proper load on, though!.

Had they just visited the Elsan point?

 

 

Apart from the wooden lid, we have none for the drum - it would be useful. And no outlets for venting, so a different piece of kit to that seemingly fitted originally.

 

Derek

My modern equivalent does have a lid, for the bucket:

[Derek R.]

. . and a side vent to connect to the overhead pipework - excellent! Absolute proof.

[alan_fincher]

There are still a number of available basic bucket and chuck its made under the Elsan name.

 

The Oxford....

 

 

 

The long serving "Bristol" doesn't appear to have altered much in over 50 years.

 

It used to be the standard issue on fire boats, (unless they had a sea toilet), but now has a full price around a staggering £100 - more than a decent Porta Potty style.....

 

 

 

 

A Lancaster with Elsan??? A leg-pull most surely!

No, I don't think it is....

 

From this site....

 

Caravan and Camping Club Link

 

Pans of The Past

 

Elsan first introduced the chemical toilet to the world in the 1920s and for some ‘Elsan’ has become the generic term for both toilet fluid and chemical toilets. An Elsan was even the ‘convenience of choice’ for air raid shelters and bomber crews during the Second World War.

 

Today you will often see campsites refer to their Chemical Disposal Points as Elsan Disposal Points because of the history and popularity of the brand.

Edited July 17, 2010 by alan_fincher

[carlt]

Love the website, Alan www.incontinencechoice.co.uk.

 

I've bookmarked it.....just in case.

[Timleech]

I remember when we had our first shared boat, in the sixties, and acquired an Elsan toilet, someone produced a gallon can of 'Elsanol' from their parents' garage. It was nothing like Elsan Blue, definitely oily and maybe related to Jeyes Fluid.

 

 

Tim

[Natalie Graham]

Memory lane:

 

Wow, a lid! Must have been a deluxe model.

[LEO]

A Lancaster with Elsan??? A leg-pull most surely!

 

There's a replica Lancaster cockpit - accurate down to the size of rivets used - at the Pitsone Farm Museum, and one of the talking points is a tube specifically used for the expulsion of crew urine. They may have used their pants on occassions, but apart from placing some additional 'load' on a bomb, I can't imagine the aircraft payload being lumbered with an Elsan, nor of the consequences of spillage due to 'turbulence' - have you evidence Mike?

 

Derek

Derek,

 

 

I suspect all the old Lancaster crews are not available for comment, but whilst space may have been allowed for a fitting on these planes it would not really have been practical to use a chemical WC on a wartime bomber - high altitude/low temperatures mean that thick flying suits have to be worn, can't see a bomber crewman breaking off hostilities for a 'pony' and clambering out of his flying suit to use the facility. Least of all the poor 'tail end Charlie'.

 

They may have been fitted and used when the Shackleton was used post war for Coastal Command (50.000 rivets flying in loose formation).

 

Hope you enjoyed your day at Pitstone.

 

Leo

[alan_fincher]

Google for

 

Lancaster Bomber Elsan

 

There are enough convincing references amongst the 170 odd hits I get to tell me it's no story, including references to a publication that you can buy that "shows no less than 5 photos of the Elsan toilet".

 

For example......

 

Here's another example URL

 

http://www.communigate.co.uk/ne/airenthusiast/page2.phtml

 

This photo shows the rear fusilage area of the Lancaster the step on the left is for the door the Elsan toilet which was in the middle of the fusilage leading to the rear turret.

 

The floor was torn up by cannon fire from a night fighter.

 

Funnily enough a recent Berkhamsted Gazette contained an article on a former pilot visiting a Lancaster with other former RAF bomber crew.

 

I was genuinely surprised to find that apart from the Battle of Britain Flight Lancaster there is only one other airworthy one in the world, (in Canada IIRC ?)

Edited July 17, 2010 by alan_fincher

[BuckbyLocks]

Google for

 

Lancaster Bomber Elsan

 

There are enough convincing references amongst the 170 odd hits I get to tell me it's no story, including references to a publication that you can buy that "shows no less than 5 photos of the Elsan toilet".

 

For example......

 

Here's another example URL

 

http://www.communigate.co.uk/ne/airenthusiast/page2.phtml

 

 

 

Funnily enough a recent Berkhamsted Gazette contained an article on a former pilot visiting a Lancaster with other former RAF bomber crew.

 

I was genuinely surprised to find that apart from the Battle of Britain Flight Lancaster there is only one other airworthy one in the world, (in Canada IIRC ?)

 

I believe they were also fitted in Wellington Bombers.

 

I can only repeat my earlier posting that my aunts' late 40s Elsan had a vent pipe attached to the outer container which went up through the roof of the shed. The only problem with it was if you let the inner tank get too full when it was a b***** to carry to the new hole you had dug in the garden. Of course it had a seat and lid! No point in having a vent if you didn't close the lid. There was a lid for the inner container, but I do not recall ever bothering to fit it, or on any of the dozens of scout camp 'elsies' I have had to empty in the 50s and 60s. The smell of the Jeyes Fluid though put me off the stuff even to this day. I hate it!

[Derek R.]

Well I'll wash my socks! Elsan's in bombers: - http://www.lancaster-archive.com/forum/vie...3c076736cabc70b

 

Live and learn.

 

Derek

[alan_fincher]

Well I'll wash my socks! Elsan's in bombers: - http://www.lancaster-archive.com/forum/vie...3c076736cabc70b

Gives a whole new meaning to dropping a full load over Germany.......

 

Coat!

 

(At least they made the right decision not to install a pump-out!)

Edited July 17, 2010 by alan_fincher

[Speedwheel]

but now has a full price around a staggering £100

 

Empty ones are cheaper at around £67 - http://www.midlandchandlers.co.uk/Products...lsan/Tc007.aspx

 

Edit: Link fixed

Edited July 17, 2010 by Speedwheel

[alan_fincher]

Empty ones are cheaper at around £67 - http://www.midlandchandlers.co.uk/Products...lsan/Tc007.aspx

 

Edit: Link fixed

Very drole!

 

I normally prefer to buy from a well known supplier like

 

Incontinence Choice!

 

the penalty there being that it is £113.21 after you have added the dreaded VAT.

 

So well done Midland for coming in at half the price of Incontinence Choice!

Edited July 17, 2010 by alan_fincher

[JohnO]

SNIP...

the penalty there being that it is £113.21 after you have added the dreaded VAT.

So well done Midland for coming in at half the price of Incontinence Choice!

It's all to do with buying power, bulk purchase and all that. Does that mean boaters need more toilets then incontinents? There is a joke in there somewhere I just can't find it.

[Natalie Graham]

(At least they made the right decision not to install a pump-out!)

 

It was tried but the pump out-facilities were just too small

 

 

Now I just need to rid myself of the image of Derek R washing his socks in the elsan.

[Steve King]

Were GUCCCo motor boats originally fitted with chemical toilets in their engine rooms?

 

A summary of the discussion so far, a plea for ideas, and a startling observation (!):

 

Elsan have been making chemical toilets since the 1920s. Elsan fluid was different in those early days, and Jeyes fluid was an alternative. An early type of toilet is recalled which had a vent pipe rising from the rear of the closet in which a removeable inner container was installed.

 

Several contributors remember seeing plans of the boats which showed how such a facility had been designed, and might have been installed. The plans depicted a closet with a vent, from which lightweight metal piping was routed to the engine room roof in way of the original ‘liner’ funnel, presumably to release to atmosphere any unpleasant smells, gases or condensation. The decision to fit such a facility would have been taken by company management and/or the boat designers and would have been in keeping with the modern image of the fleet. Although probably unknown to canal boatbuilders, chemical toilets would have been readily available to H&W and Yarwoods via ships chandlery catalogues.

 

Photographic evidence has been found to show what is obviously a vent on the roof of motor boat Pinner, being in the predicted location and complete with pipe poking up through the fitting. Many ex-GUCCCo motor boat roofs have been plated over in this location, obviously having been similarly fitted in the past.

 

Set against this is that no-one recalls seeing such a facility installed in a motor boat and there is doubt that they ever were. The boatmen would probably not have seen the need for such a sophisticated and sizeable item, preferring to use a bucket in the time-honoured way and to empty it overside immediately after use without the need for chemicals. The closet would have taken up valuable space in the engine room. The piping might have been superfluous as the ventilation in the engine space was good anyway. Besides, there were no emptying points for chemical toilets along the canals at that time.

 

But if that was the case, what was that fitting on the roof for? If it was for removing hot air from the engine room up the liner funnel why did it have an inner pipe, and besides, wouldn’t the pigeon box and the engine room doors have been more effective for this purpose than a small hole in the roof?

 

Did the fitting then ventilate something other than a toilet? The gases from the battery while it charged on its small shelf at the back of the engine room? The engine room bilge? Probably not, as this is modern day practice. I can’t think of anything else that might possibly have needed ventilation. Ideas anyone?

 

In lieu then of any superseding reason for providing that fixture on Pinner’s engine room roof, I would advance with a degree of certainty a case that many (perhaps all) GUCCCo motor boats were fitted with a chemical toilet installation in the engine room from new. The boatman may not have wanted them, there may not have been anywhere to empty them, they may not have been installed for very long – but when the boats were delivered they were there.

 

Further, I would propose that the chemical toilet was in fact the very reason for providing a ‘liner’ funnel rather than the conventional tubular pipe, so as to provide not only for exhaust gases, but toilet ventilation too.

 

 

Steve

 

PS Does anyone have photos or details of that surviving original liner funnel to share please?

[Paul H]

Were GUCCCo motor boats originally fitted with chemical toilets in their engine rooms?

 

A summary of the discussion so far, a plea for ideas, and a startling observation (!):

 

Elsan have been making chemical toilets since the 1920s. Elsan fluid was different in those early days, and Jeyes fluid was an alternative. An early type of toilet is recalled which had a vent pipe rising from the rear of the closet in which a removeable inner container was installed.

 

Several contributors remember seeing plans of the boats which showed how such a facility had been designed, and might have been installed. The plans depicted a closet with a vent, from which lightweight metal piping was routed to the engine room roof in way of the original 'liner' funnel, presumably to release to atmosphere any unpleasant smells, gases or condensation. The decision to fit such a facility would have been taken by company management and/or the boat designers and would have been in keeping with the modern image of the fleet. Although probably unknown to canal boatbuilders, chemical toilets would have been readily available to H&W and Yarwoods via ships chandlery catalogues.

 

Photographic evidence has been found to show what is obviously a vent on the roof of motor boat Pinner, being in the predicted location and complete with pipe poking up through the fitting. Many ex-GUCCCo motor boat roofs have been plated over in this location, obviously having been similarly fitted in the past.

 

Set against this is that no-one recalls seeing such a facility installed in a motor boat and there is doubt that they ever were. The boatmen would probably not have seen the need for such a sophisticated and sizeable item, preferring to use a bucket in the time-honoured way and to empty it overside immediately after use without the need for chemicals. The closet would have taken up valuable space in the engine room. The piping might have been superfluous as the ventilation in the engine space was good anyway. Besides, there were no emptying points for chemical toilets along the canals at that time.

 

But if that was the case, what was that fitting on the roof for? If it was for removing hot air from the engine room up the liner funnel why did it have an inner pipe, and besides, wouldn't the pigeon box and the engine room doors have been more effective for this purpose than a small hole in the roof?

 

Did the fitting then ventilate something other than a toilet? The gases from the battery while it charged on its small shelf at the back of the engine room? The engine room bilge? Probably not, as this is modern day practice. I can't think of anything else that might possibly have needed ventilation. Ideas anyone?

 

In lieu then of any superseding reason for providing that fixture on Pinner's engine room roof, I would advance with a degree of certainty a case that many (perhaps all) GUCCCo motor boats were fitted with a chemical toilet installation in the engine room from new. The boatman may not have wanted them, there may not have been anywhere to empty them, they may not have been installed for very long – but when the boats were delivered they were there.

 

Further, I would propose that the chemical toilet was in fact the very reason for providing a 'liner' funnel rather than the conventional tubular pipe, so as to provide not only for exhaust gases, but toilet ventilation too.

 

 

Steve

 

PS Does anyone have photos or details of that surviving original liner funnel to share please?

 

Good summary Steve.

 

And if the engine exhaust terminated at the roof level inside the funnel, did the venturi effect draw air (and noxious smells) up the chemical toilet vent pipe?

 

There is a picture somewhere of one of the funnels on the ground at Malcom Braine's yard - I'll try and remeber wher I saw it.

 

Paul

[Derek R.]

Well laid out.

 

Nothing to add, save a note that the clearest pictures I have seen so far are in the George & Mary, and neither show detail. In the old edition, the printing shows CLYPEUS alongside CORVUS outside Yarwoods yard after launch, but it is at some distance.

The other is of MEROPE with three wheel van in attendance, 'that' one is actually clearer in the newest edition of G & M and shows the long flat sided funnel.

 

TYCHO shows no obvious signs of having had an outlet where PINNER does, nothing welded over there, but there is a large circular welded-in plate forward of the pigeon box approximately 10" in diameter and accompanied by filled-in bolt holes - eight in all - in a square formation surrounding it. I sketched it a page or so back. Oddball that seems to be.

 

Derek

 

Edit: having looked at my own post and photo on page 1, it looks like the point at which such a vent may have been is now occupied by the exhaust.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Derek R.

[Speedwheel]

There is a picture somewhere of one of the funnels on the ground at Malcom Braine's yard - I'll try and remeber wher I saw it.

 

Paul

 

Here are two pictures of said funnel - it is the one from Bootes I believe (though don't quote me on that).

 

 

Further, I would propose that the chemical toilet was in fact the very reason for providing a ‘liner’ funnel rather than the conventional tubular pipe, so as to provide not only for exhaust gases, but toilet ventilation too.

 

From what I have been told, that is correct. The divide in the funnel also gives weight to that.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Speedwheel