GUCCC Town Class Names

[Chris Pink]

Unless someone can find a source that actually includes Bilster, Glossor, Berkhampstead, etc.

 

There is little doubt they were meant to be place names, and it would seem far more likely they got garbled somewhere between whatever source was used, and what got painted on the boats, than that they were wrong in the initial source.

 

The same issue exists with the "Stars" - I doubt you'll find a pre GUCCCo source that includes "Glaxy" & "Triagulum" in a list of astronomically related items, will you ?

 

In fact the "Stars" appear to be worse, in that there are several others where you can't even guess what the intention was meant to be, it seems!

 

It's interesting how many spelling mistakes there are in these boat names.

[alan_fincher]

Yesterday I saw the Mikron Theatre Company in their boat 'Tyseley' (definitely a railway location!) at Cropredy lock. I asked whether the boat was a converted working boat and the steerer replied that as far as she knew, it was built in 1974 and had been a restaurant boat before becoming the theatre company's base. Is this so, or was the restaurant boat itself a conversion of a "Town" class working boat?

How sad that someone associated with Mikron, (who make a bi thing out of the history and heritage of the canals), has no idea of the rich history of their own boat!

 

I sincerely hope it was a "hanger on" rather than a member of the cast, but I'm genuinely amazed anyone steering it believed it to be 1970s!

[Athy]

Well, she was steering. I assumed that she was one of the Mikrons. In fairness, the "1974" date seems to tally with the date when Tyseley stopped being a restaurant boat and became Mikron's home. Perhaps she thought that the boat had been built new for the company. She was quite knowledgeable about the Russell Newbery engine, and about the boat's dimensions (including an amazing 3'8" draught - I'm surprised that they ever manage to get anywhere!)

 

EDIT: I have just looked at their web site, which does indeed identify the boat as having been built in 1936. Mind you, it also dates the founding of Mikron to 1972 (on the masthead) and 1963 (in the text).

Edited July 30, 2012 by Athy

[Derek R.]

And does Ethiopia really sound like a heavenly body?

 

Sounds like 'Cassiopeia' . .

 

Edited to add: In all seriousness, if we are including folk who were being asked what names they could come up with without referring to detailed lists, then there is every possibility that amongst some folk, Ethiopia may well have sounded like a heavenly body (without referring to the secretary's body) and may well have been included, such as Bargus might have been according to Laurence's hearsay. Enough have been spelt wrong, so there's a genuine reason why some have been heard and perceived as being right - but wrong.

 

If you want to blow the detailed lists out of the ball park, then you are going to have to allow play for all.

 

Bet Lesley Morton knows and is having a real chortle at all this.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Derek R.

[David Mack]

EDIT: I have just looked at their web site, which does indeed identify the boat as having been built in 1936. Mind you, it also dates the founding of Mikron to 1972 (on the masthead) and 1963 (in the text).

 

No conflict there. The masthead says "Touring professional theatre on Britain's waterways for 40 years". The company first took to the water in 1972, but they were founded in 1963.

[Laurence Hogg]

Lets look at a few known facts. First "Arteries of commerce" was the GUCCo publicity book produced in 1932 ahead of the mass build of boats. At that time only the original "Royalty" pair was in service and they are used as the illustration for a modern canal boat.

What is in the book is a list of "Principle places" served by the GUC. Of note is that a large number of these are not reproduced in the boat names used thereafter seemingly they ignored this as a source of names or they did not reproduce names used by other carriers, ie FMC and S&CCCo.

 

 

In the document held in the TWT archives entitled "A history of the GUCCCo Ltd up to 1948 (part 1)" here is a couple of paragraphs from a photocopy:

 

 

This clearly shows how the numbering was changed and how the company viewed the types in the fleet. But more important it highlights the company seeks to compete with road and rail, not other canal companies.

 

The minutes of the Grand Union Canal Company and all its subsideries are held at Kew. So a visit there may well throw up the answer to how the names were picked. But also and not to be forgotten is the other group of craft named after towns and villages, those are the ships run by "Grand Union Shipping Ltd", the ones I know to are

Kilworth, Blisworth (there were two carrying this name), Bosworth, Knebworth and Marsworth.

The second Blisworth was built new in 1957, GUS (the Regents line)was not nationalised and continued long after GUCCCo was absorbed.

 

details:

 

Name BLISWORTH

Construction STEEL

Type CARGO

Date 1957

Official Number 187686

Description Yard Number: 753

Date of Launch: 26 september 1957

Owner: Grand Union (Shipping) Ltd. London

 

Cargo - raised quarter deck

 

From Burntisland & Hall Russell Group Journal, 25 (4) 1958 pp102-103:

Launched 26/09/1957. Naming ceremony performed by Mrs Hebron, wife of a director of company for whom ship was built.

Designed primarily for trading coast wise, and between U.K. and the Continent.

Crew of 14.

 

Photos:

(1) "Leaving the ways"

(2) Mrs W. T. Hebron

(3) BLISWORTH on the measured mile

(4) Deck view

(5) Captains day room

 

Change of Ownership 1968 - General Steam Navitgation Co. Ltd

Change of Ownership 1971 - Chesham Shipping Ltd (Manager Briggs Shipbrokers & Agents Ltd).

Change of Ownership 1974 - LANA Maritime Shipping Co., Beirut

 

Last mentioned in Lloyd's Register of Shipping 1988-89.

 

 

Shipbuilder A. HALL & Co., Aberdeen

Dimensions length 213' x breadth 33'10" x depth 14'1"

gross tonnage 1031 tons

 

 

Its just possible this ship may still be around.

[Athy]

No conflict there. The masthead says "Touring professional theatre on Britain's waterways for 40 years". The company first took to the water in 1972, but they were founded in 1963.

Look a little higher on the page and you will see "Mikron Theatre est. 1972", not "launched 1972" if you'll pardon the pun.

[magpie patrick]

Lets look at a few known facts. <snip rather than repeat entire post>

 

 

Very interesting information Laurence, and it shows that the GUCCCo were effectively acting as freight forwarders in providing an entire logistics chain. It's a fair bet that if they had arms length control of a shipping line trading to Ghent they had contacts on the other side that could bring the cargo from beyond to them. That's a very high level of operation and it is little surprise they wrong footed rail companies for a while.

 

Going back to the names, did other companies end up with mis-spellings? To some extent the GUCCCo ones are better know because more of these boats were photographed and more of them survive. The List of LMS Station boats, for example, doesn't show up any mis-spellings (although I'm not sure "Rollo" is a word), however there are far fewer left and fewer photographs. Which came first, the sign writing or the record? If there was no photographic evidence of "Glossor" would we know it hadn't been called "Glossop"?

 

As an afterthought, if they were competing with the railways, not only would they have had a Bradshaw's, but a whole host of other documents to enable them to calculate competitive prices.

[antarmike]

 

 

As an afterthought, if they were competing with the railways, not only would they have had a Bradshaw's, but a whole host of other documents to enable them to calculate competitive prices.

I thought Bradshaws was a collection of Passenger timetables..... How does having passenger timetables help price competitive rates for a cargo business?

 

I see the "principle places" document has a halfway spelling Of Berkhampstead/ Berkhamsted namely Berkhamstead.

 

Berkhampstead, the older spelling, is incidentally still used and can be found for example in Berkhampstead Road, Amersham., And was on the wrought iron gates of "Berkhampstead gas works,when they where taken down in the 70's / Early 80's.

 

Wiki, if it is to be believed, says the spelling Berkhamsted was adopted in 1937, so when the Butty was named the town still was Berkhampstead / Berkhamstead.

Edited July 30, 2012 by antarmike

[Heartland]

I think, canal competition with railways had a long history of success and failure. The Grand Junction Canal Carrying Company had that as one of its objects and perhaps without the explosion on the Regents Canal in 1874, and the explosion of Pincher might have lasted longer. Once the railway network was established the competition entered a new phase from canal/ canal or canal/ road or river/ road, or river/canal to include railway in that mix. And I suppose that first rivalry was Liverpool & Manchester Railway, Mersey & Irwell Navigation and Bridgewater Canal. Yet what the GUCCC did was to bring waterways into the Twentieth Century, widening waterways and introducing "modern craft" with a distribution network futher afield. Laurence has touched on an important historical point.

 

Ray Shill

[Laurence Hogg]

Very interesting information Laurence, and it shows that the GUCCCo were effectively acting as freight forwarders in providing an entire logistics chain. It's a fair bet that if they had arms length control of a shipping line trading to Ghent they had contacts on the other side that could bring the cargo from beyond to them. That's a very high level of operation and it is little surprise they wrong footed rail companies for a while.

 

Going back to the names, did other companies end up with mis-spellings? To some extent the GUCCCo ones are better know because more of these boats were photographed and more of them survive. The List of LMS Station boats, for example, doesn't show up any mis-spellings (although I'm not sure "Rollo" is a word), however there are far fewer left and fewer photographs. Which came first, the sign writing or the record? If there was no photographic evidence of "Glossor" would we know it hadn't been called "Glossop"?

 

As an afterthought, if they were competing with the railways, not only would they have had a Bradshaw's, but a whole host of other documents to enable them to calculate competitive prices.

There are a large number of mis spellings in many gauging books and as all are hand written and then copied the mistakes are pepetuated. Also some hand writing is very difficult to read so this can introduce errors to those not used to fleet names, when my late father transcribed to short form the GJCC / Oxford / BCN registers he would often have many pages marked where we had to deduce what was correct. However on boat signwriting it does somehow appear the GUCCCo was king of the mistakes!

With H&W launching boats into the Thames with names just roughly applied on can speculate to what the waves did before the signwriter got on the job!

 

[alan_fincher]

Wiki, if it is to be believed, says the spelling Berkhamsted was adopted in 1937, so when the Butty was named the town still was Berkhampstead / Berkhamstead.

There is certainly no single date though, and when the change actually occurred depends on the on context.....

 

The name of the civil registration district didn't actually change from Berkhampstead to Berkhamsted until 1939, for example, (your grandparents married in the "Berkhampstead" district).

 

But earlier photos show that the station name had changed to the modern spelling before that 1939 date.

 

In fact, I have a book in front of me that claims the railways only used the old form until the 1860s, but I am deeply cynical that that is true - I think pre 20th century use of the modern spelling was fairly rare. (Scott Hastie, [remember him?!?] in his history of the town chooses not to tackle the subject of the many spellings over the centuries).

 

We have, however, already been told that a 1938 Bradshaw uses the modern spelling, and we have pre-war pictures of LMS streamliners passing the signal box also showing the modern spelling. So unless someone can produce a 1936 timetable, "Bradshaw" or suitable dated photograph, I think the jury is out as to which spelling was the 1936 one, in railway terms, at least, when the boat name was chosen.

 

One further thing to consider - Many people not knowing the town still write down the archaeic spelling if you simply tell them the town name, without spelling it out. Many people simply assume that is how it is still spelt - they have probably heard of, and can spell, Hampstead in London, so assume this town is the same, with the extra bit tacked on the front.....

Edited July 30, 2012 by alan_fincher

[Chertsey]

AND AGAIN,

Why would a modern canal company associate itself with Railway station names a system to which it traded in opposittion?

It doesnt make sense.

A 1930 copy of Newnes "The open road" contains the majority of the same names but once again is showing allegance to "road transport, but then GUCCCo Ltd did have a fleet of lorry's for onward delivery,

however they had no railway connectons at all.

Remember too they stopped short of the BCN (railway owned) by having their depot at Sampson Rd (Camp Hill).

In that case, why did they not go to the trouble of finding more places without a railway station? i.e. more than zero. There is no getting away from the fact that every single place name used had a railway station. Now, maybe as you suggested earlier this is because everywhere (really, everywhere?) had a railway station then. In which case they might as well have used a Bradshaws as anything else.

 

On your second point, I may be on shakier ground here, but I thought that the Grand Union weathered railway competition better than most canal companies (they must have done to have still been going so strong in the thirties) and thus would be less likely to see the railways as competition. Furthermore, I understood that (albeit post war) it was road competition that did far more to finish them off.

 

How sad that someone associated with Mikron, (who make a bi thing out of the history and heritage of the canals), has no idea of the rich history of their own boat!

 

I sincerely hope it was a "hanger on" rather than a member of the cast, but I'm genuinely amazed anyone steering it believed it to be 1970s!

The cast are professional actors and often don't seem to have much interest in the boat. The same sort of thing used to happen with Tarporley, of all the volunteers I think I was the only one who was primarily interested in it as a historic boat rather than a community boat.

[Tuscan]

I can't see how we can resolve this, Chertsey's theory is as good as any but I suspect we could construct others, as I don't think it's proven. Hopefully some definitive information will surface.

[Chertsey]

We are possibly trying to be too clever in looking for a single source, especially for the Stars. Whatever the main source, anomolies can easily (and I think credibly) be explained by people throwing in their pet favourites, guesses and maybe even jokes.

 

One further final thought re the railway competition argument... If (and I think it is a big if) this has any significance, it could work both ways. If, as Arteries of Commerce suggests, they were looking to take on the railways (rather than feeling threatened by them) it could be seen as throwing down a gauntlet.

 

Although I think this is a complete red herring....

[Heartland]

Laurence, the BCN was NOT railway owned, but it was CONTROLLED. LNWR and LMS people were appointed to Board and BCN Board decisions were referred back to the Railway company. If they had been Railway owned, as stated before, the BCN would have passed first to the Railway Executive on January 1st 1947. This was not the case, they wemt straight to the D& IWE.

 

Ray Shill

[Laurence Hogg]

Laurence, the BCN was NOT railway owned, but it was CONTROLLED. LNWR and LMS people were appointed to Board and BCN Board decisions were referred back to the Railway company. If they had been Railway owned, as stated before, the BCN would have passed first to the Railway Executive on January 1st 1947. This was not the case, they wemt straight to the D& IWE.

 

Ray Shill

 

The BCN was railway owned but Crewe left the control "as was" due to the complexity. As you correctly say they appointed and allowed the Co to feed back.

Upon nationialisation it would have been a bit stupid to give to the railway executive instead it went to DIWE. Dont forget that for many years BR and BW shared the same office block with BW on the left side and BR on the right, what happened on BR reflected on BW, even today we now have in effect "Network water" (The Waterways Infrastructure Trust).

 

We are possibly trying to be too clever in looking for a single source, especially for the Stars. Whatever the main source, anomolies can easily (and I think credibly) be explained by people throwing in their pet favourites, guesses and maybe even jokes.

 

One further final thought re the railway competition argument... If (and I think it is a big if) this has any significance, it could work both ways. If, as Arteries of Commerce suggests, they were looking to take on the railways (rather than feeling threatened by them) it could be seen as throwing down a gauntlet.

 

Although I think this is a complete red herring....

 

Dont forget one point, in the offices the boat number and letter for the "type" were the ruling order of the day, names didnt come into it. In fact if the boats were never named GUCCCo wouldnt have been bothered as the number system of control was a great step forward. However I would reckon the crews would not have liked just a number and that alone may be a reason why names were applied.

Everyone on here seems to overlook Grand Union Shipping (The Regents Line) which provided so much traffics from abroad, no other main canal carrier had that asset, their own shipping dock berthing their own ships and offloading into their boats, perhaphs someone would like to suggest how the ships were named and why? Knebworth, Bosworth, Marsworth, Blisworth, Kilworth etc ... "the "Worth" class ???

[Derek R.]

I think names came into it very much. I don't however, believe that naming boats was any appeasment to the boat people, it surely was simply a way of confirming any particular boat, rather like belt and braces, and from the point that on the 'Control Board' the little tags could only hold a three digit number at the most. There were many boats without names and just numbers alone, mostly day boats methinks, but then there were many more railway engines without names, though those with are better remembered for having them. Almost as much conjecture as where they got their names from in the first - or second place! A fleet number could be changes easier than a name - it takes less effort. But did numbers must come first originating in the builders yard, or did they have names alloted from when a keel was laid?

 

The 'famous' shot of the Boat List in 'Inland Waterways' shows one fleet number first, followed by the names of Motor and Butty. Names were preferred, just as I preferred to be called Derek, rather than N 94649. But then I'm not an inanimate object. Not yet.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Derek R.

[Chertsey]

Interesting to note (post 207) that the terms Star Class and Town Class were being used as early as 1948.

[Laurence Hogg]

I think names came into it very much. I don't however, believe that naming boats was any appeasment to the boat people, it surely was simply a way of confirming any particular boat, rather like belt and braces, and from the point that on the 'Control Board' the little tags could only hold a three digit number at the most. There were many boats without names and just numbers alone, mostly day boats methinks, but then there were many more railway engines without names, though those with are better remembered for having them. Almost as much conjecture as where they got their names from in the first - or second place! A fleet number could be changes easier than a name - it takes less effort. But did numbers must come first originating in the builders yard, or did they have names alloted from when a keel was laid?

 

The 'famous' shot of the Boat List in 'Inland Waterways' shows one fleet number first, followed by the names of Motor and Butty. Names were preferred, just as I preferred to be called Derek, rather than N 94649. But then I'm not an inanimate object. Not yet.

 

The yards built a series of boats to yard numbers, these are evident on some drawings where the batch is referred to.

An example being for large Woolwich built butty's " 24 off C/7905/W yard Nos 435 - 481" That is on a blurprint from Harland & Wolff dated January 1936. As it refers to 46 craft one must interprete the yard numbers include the motors and assume the first pair "Aber & Alperton" had been delivered as prototypes before the main order commenced.

[magpie patrick]

Laurence, the BCN was NOT railway owned, but it was CONTROLLED. LNWR and LMS people were appointed to Board and BCN Board decisions were referred back to the Railway company. If they had been Railway owned, as stated before, the BCN would have passed first to the Railway Executive on January 1st 1947. This was not the case, they wemt straight to the D& IWE.

 

Ray Shill

 

<holds head in hands and sighs>

 

The Shropshire Union, Trent and Mersey, Peak Forest, Ashton, were all railway owned as was the Huddersfield Narrow, unless your argument is that these all passed to the Railway Executive who sat, look puzzled and then transferred them to Dainwex (which would have been no small administrative procedure) this was not the case. Some of these waters had already been abandoned upon nationalisation.

 

The BCN was complicated, and subject to a deal that would have given today's fair trade bodies apoplexy. The railways owned a controlling interest in shares in the BCN, but the deal involved a minimum dividend for BCN shareholders. In his 1904 book on the commerce of Inland Waterways Edwin Pratt argues that this meant the railways sweated the asset to get their money back, although he seemed to miss the point that it would have been pointless them spending more money than they got back in tolls to do this.

Edited August 2, 2012 by magpie patrick

[pete harrison]

Oops - I pressed the wrong button

Edited August 2, 2012 by pete harrison

[pete harrison]

The yards built a series of boats to yard numbers, these are evident on some drawings where the batch is referred to.

An example being for large Woolwich built butty's " 24 off C/7905/W yard Nos 435 - 481" That is on a blurprint from Harland & Wolff dated January 1936. As it refers to 46 craft one must interprete the yard numbers include the motors and assume the first pair "Aber & Alperton" had been delivered as prototypes before the main order commenced.

C/7905/W is the Harland & Wolff Ltd. "Order Number" for 24 71'6'' x 7'0½'' x 4'9½'' buttys (Large Woolwich), ALPERTON being Harland & Wolff Ltd. "Yard Number" 435 and BUDE being "Yard Number" 481. The Large Woolwich motors were built under two different "Order Numbers" and all have their own "Yard Number". ABER and ALPERTON were built under the same "Order Numbers" as the others of their type although they do have their own "Yard Numbers". I can confirm that although ABER and ALPERTON were the first boats of this type to be delivered it was only by a few days.

 

It has always surprised me that although 'enthusiasts' are aware and interested in W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd. "Yard Numbers" there appears to be so little interest in Harland & Wolff Ltd. "Yard Numbers"

[Athy]

That is on a blurprint from Harland & Wolff dated January 1936.

I assume that no clearer copy has survived?

[David Mack]

I'm fairly sure that Tyseley is the Town class boat.

 

Edited to add:

 

According to the National Historic Ships Register...

 

"TYSELEY is a narrow boat, commissioned by the Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd. (GUCCCL) and built by W.J.Yarwood & Sons Ltd. at Northwich in 1937. She was registered at Rickmansworth as number 149 and worked as fleet number 183. She was one of the Town Class designs and her hull is of riveted steel. She has a pointed bow and a counter stern. Her current engine is a Russell Newbury DM2 water cooled diesel, two cylinders and 18 brake horsepower, made in 1985.

 

She worked for GUCCCL until she passed under the ownership of British Waterways, finishing her commercial days on the cement run from Long Itchington to Camp Hill. From 1937 to 1954, the Brooks family ran TYSELEY. Her butties included UTTOXETER, ACHILLES, BORDESLEY, BRIGHTON and BARNES.

 

Subsequently, TYSELEY was owned by Midland Canal Transport and then was converted to become the first ever restaurant boat based at Thrupp on the South Oxford Canal. Since 1975, she has been the base and publicity vehicle for a touring theatre company."

 

"The Brooks had Tyseley seventeen years,

Steve Woolford nearly ten.

Then Mikron bought and converted her

Now she's carrying once again.

 

Still carrying,

Still carrying,

Still carrying on.

 

All the boats are leaving now,

but the Tyseley's swimming on."

 

Part of the title song from Mikron's show about Tyseley, "Still Carrying", from 1983/4, repeated in 1996. (Hope I've remembered the words right).

 

The Brookes, father and son, had Tyesley from new for GUCCCo and BW. Steve Woolford operated Tyseley as a resturant boat at Thrupp.