BCN Tug designation

[John Holden]

I had the same experience some years ago when at the request of a descendant of the family involved, I sent the results of some of my research to a museum in the USA. Within the text were details of information from the birth marriage and burial records of the Mid Somerset Quakers (supported by photo copies of the official 1837 National records). The response was "very interesting but we prefer to believe what we were told by family members" which turned ot to be the recollections of an 80 year old woman relating what she thought her granddmother had told her when she was a child, and that would have been nearly a hundred years after the event. The incorrect information still appears in the writtn accounts at the said USA museum!

 

Oh no, not family history! The biggest repository of falsehoods and inexactitudes! Somebody once did a spoof tree "proving" that they were descended from Adam as a joke one Christmas, by Easter many had incorporated it into their trees.

[AMModels]

"snippety snip" that waterways are partly my source of income and with "Inland Waterways Models" about to relaunch with accurate 4mm scale boats "snipped again.

 

About time someone did, hehehe

 

And I wrote in post number 44:-

 

Once a 'historic' narrow boat website operator can commit themselves fully to building and maintaining the records they have published then we may end up with an "online repository of information" that has some value.

 

I still stand by this, I just wish I didn't have to write it

 

 

The writing isnt the hard part its the maintaining and updating which is the hard work, maybe a wiki would be the best idea but one with restricted editing, the restriction being only those with a password could edit the information and only 'approved' editors would be given the password.

[pete harrison]

And I wrote in post number 44:-

 

Once a 'historic' narrow boat website operator can commit themselves fully to building and maintaining the records they have published then we may end up with an "online repository of information" that has some value.

 

I still stand by this, I just wish I didn't have to write it

I may not have made myself clear here as I have no intention of writing a website (for reasons already discussed on this Forum). What I did intend to say is that I wish I didn't have to write the statement in post number 44

[AMModels]

I may not have made myself clear here as I have no intention of writing a website (for reasons already discussed on this Forum). What I did intend to say is that I wish I didn't have to write the statement in post number 44

 

If we are talking about accuracy then no one has to write anything, what people choose to do or say is something else entirely.

[pete harrison]

what people choose to do or say is something else entirely.

And this is the fundamental flaw of the internet where anybody can write anything. In the old days of books content had to get passed a publisher before reaching the public, and as there was a considerable amount of money involved reference publications tended to be more accurate - and although there are obvious exceptions these compare little to the inaccuracies of the internet

[AMModels]

Now as we're so far lets get back on track.

 

 

When is a tug not a tug?

 

 

Edited for reasons of sanity.... mine

Edited October 16, 2012 by AMModels

[carlt]

What you have to understand is that some 'enthusiasts' who are quite new to 'historic' narrow boats are respected for their knowledge when in reality their knowledge is superficial and mostly acquired from heresay, books, or even worse from 'historic' narrow boat websites. These 'enthusiasts' then band about their knowledge and less knowledgeable 'enthusiasts' listen to them, presuming them to be correct because they are associated with a 'historic' boat.

 

It is then left to researchers to put things right...

'Enthusiasts' are only able to work with the data they are given.

 

I as an 'enthusiast' have a room full of books that I have read and absorbed the contents whereas you, as a 'researcher' have (presumably) a room full of documents and books that (presumably) you have read and absorbed.

 

As an 'enthusiast' I have learned no less than you but I have relied on the skill and accuracy of the 'researchers' that have written those books whereas you are fortunate enough to have first hand documentation to learn from.

 

When you disparagingly describe me as a mere 'enthusiast' you are not actually criticising me and my fellow 'enthusiasts' you are criticising your fellow 'researchers' for the inaccuracy of their work and yourself for not publishing and sharing your data apart from drips and drabs that you deign to impart.

 

If you want us 'enthusiasts' to stop getting it wrong then publish your data or give it to someone who is capable of doing it.

 

I get a bit tired of the imperious manner you adopt when you tell us how crap we all are.

 

'Enthusiasts' are only as crap as the 'researchers' who publish inaccurate information and 'researchers' who maintain their elitist stance by dribbling out snippets to prove 'enthusiasts' wrong, rather than expanding all of our knowledge by releasing the lot.

[Derek R.]

Pigeon amongst cats. And hopefully to allay Andy’s insanity - see last paragraph.

 

It is said: - "History is always written by the victors" - well, it's certainly written by those who have most to lose or compromised maybe by telling the truth, and another basic: ‘truth is the first casualty of war’. But there should be no war here, nor competition to be the first with anything. But there are some folk who put up websites with the best of intentions, and then fail to update them due to other commitments when things are found to be needing amendment in one way or another. This leads to a conclusion that the origins of what was first written were incorrect, the task of further correcting becomes all consuming and overwhelming. Why? Often it may be found to be a lack of research in the right quarters. But even then, where any history is written down, there is the human element involved – even those writing the detailed records of items or events at the time, can make mistakes either in spelling, or figures which leaves the future historian with several ‘garden paths’ to negotiate.

 

Family trees can be notoriously diverse, and taken from other family members can be rife with errors. Even official records can hold errors especially with occupation and habitation. Birth, death and marriage certificates do not tell the whole tale that is true in every sense.

 

The problem with historic boat websites is - like many books on the history of the World - errors get carried forward because the true research is just too much work to undertake with little or no other reward than to be taken to task by some who will claim through reference to half a dozen other websites or books that contradict what the genuine researcher has come up with. And so he/she keeps quiet, storing the information until someone comes along to carry on their task with a like mind, and maybe a thick or thicker skin.

 

The nearest we can get to truth in any area of research is from those with first hand knowledge by being there, or making an item (better still by it being personal experience), or having in hand original documents, transcripts and experiences. Even then, there will be certain areas of memory fatigue, rose tinted glasses, or straightforward embarrassment over events, not to mention spelling errors and failing to record something for whatever reason and relying on memory alone – the latter leading to ‘tales’ that get embellished with the telling and re-telling.

 

I would take to task the claim that the formerly published history via publishing houses and the like were more accurate in their results, and were indeed the breeding ground of discrimination and the continuation of established thought in any particular arena – warts and all. It is with the ability of the internet as a ‘peoples voice’, that more are questioning the established ‘truths’, and more is being uncovered – some of it dark, but always it seems controversial.

 

I think half the fun of researching is finding out the various stories, and then attempting to get to the bottom of them all. Chinese whispers are guilty of much - it's human nature. Few learn Chinese outside China, and many are the believers of tales.

 

Where does this leave any researcher? Perhaps with the fact that all history is bunkum as is published and told. The only true history is what we are doing here and now today. Tomorrow it will be retold, but seldom exactly how it happened. Nonetheless, it is a fascinating subject and will keep many occupied for a very long time – as will the debating of same.

 

When is a tug not a tug?

As a noun (which it isn’t in my dictionary, though often used as one when describing certain craft built and designed solely to move other vessels, and which may or not have some carrying capacity) then such a vessel can reasonably be called a Tug whether it pushes or pulls.

As a verb, which it is, it’s when you stop tugging.

[luctor et emergo]

All this talk about stemming a butty with a motor, are we to asume that these are full length boats? Not sure if I would like to take a 140 foot long boat down the cut. That is, if you are pushing, the boats need to be fairly riggdly connected...

[Timleech]

All this talk about stemming a butty with a motor, are we to asume that these are full length boats? Not sure if I would like to take a 140 foot long boat down the cut. That is, if you are pushing, the boats need to be fairly riggdly connected...

 

No they don't, but you need to be thinking of three points all the time, and the effect that what you do as steerer will have on all three, instead of just two as with a rigid boat. I've never tried it, it might be an interesting challenge just as an exercise but of no serious (regular) practical use today.

 

Tim

[carlt]

All this talk about stemming a butty with a motor, are we to asume that these are full length boats? Not sure if I would like to take a 140 foot long boat down the cut. That is, if you are pushing, the boats need to be fairly riggdly connected...

It's a bit like reversing an articulated lorry though I would happily push a butty in a straight line, intuitively knowing how to control the pivot point yet I marvel at the skill of a lorry driver, reversing a trailer into a narrow space at an angle when I need a whole field to reverse my caravan and still invariably cock it up and have to unhitch and finish it off by hand.

[alan_fincher]

All this talk about stemming a butty with a motor, are we to asume that these are full length boats?

That's certainly what is shown in the two books I'm referring to.

 

Full length TC(O)Ltd motor pushing full length TC(O)Ltd Butty.

 

Total length > 140 feet, steered just from back - nobody visibly on butty in either case.

[Laurence Hogg]

That's certainly what is shown in the two books I'm referring to.

 

Full length TC(O)Ltd motor pushing full length TC(O)Ltd Butty.

 

Total length > 140 feet, steered just from back - nobody visibly on butty in either case.

Alan, where do these pictures appear?

[pete harrison]

'Enthusiasts' are only able to work with the data they are given.

 

I as an 'enthusiast' have a room full of books that I have read and absorbed the contents whereas you, as a 'researcher' have (presumably) a room full of documents and books that (presumably) you have read and absorbed.

 

As an 'enthusiast' I have learned no less than you but I have relied on the skill and accuracy of the 'researchers' that have written those books whereas you are fortunate enough to have first hand documentation to learn from.

 

When you disparagingly describe me as a mere 'enthusiast' you are not actually criticising me and my fellow 'enthusiasts' you are criticising your fellow 'researchers' for the inaccuracy of their work and yourself for not publishing and sharing your data apart from drips and drabs that you deign to impart.

 

If you want us 'enthusiasts' to stop getting it wrong then publish your data or give it to someone who is capable of doing it.

 

I get a bit tired of the imperious manner you adopt when you tell us how crap we all are.

 

'Enthusiasts' are only as crap as the 'researchers' who publish inaccurate information and 'researchers' who maintain their elitist stance by dribbling out snippets to prove 'enthusiasts' wrong, rather than expanding all of our knowledge by releasing the lot.

I had never looked at this from your point of view - i.e. that the enthusiast is left lacking knowledge due to researchers not publishing their work, and I find it most interesting. I also appreciate that my use of the term 'enthusiast' was a little caustic, which it was meant to be as I had somebody specific in mind.

 

I had always thought that, generally speaking, I have been doing a good thing by using this Forum (as well as the waterways press) to publish the results of my research but of course I can only answer questions as they are asked or input to an ongoing thread as seems appropriate. I now have doubt in my mind as I can only supply information in "drips and drabs" and certainly do not consider myself to be elitist. I have therefore decided to dwell on this for a while whilst severely limiting my input to this Forum and the waterways press.

 

I would however like to thank you for adding a word to my vocabulary. At work today I managed to say "imperious" several times

[carlt]

I had never looked at this from your point of view - i.e. that the enthusiast is left lacking knowledge due to researchers not publishing their work, and I find it most interesting. I also appreciate that my use of the term 'enthusiast' was a little caustic, which it was meant to be as I had somebody specific in mind.

 

I had always thought that, generally speaking, I have been doing a good thing by using this Forum (as well as the waterways press) to publish the results of my research but of course I can only answer questions as they are asked or input to an ongoing thread as seems appropriate.

It is fair to say Pete that this forum and the "enthusiast's" world in general is much richer for your contributions, not poorer.

 

It is frustrating, though, to haves one's shortcomings highlighted, when those shortcomings are not caused by lack of interest or ability but lack of accuracy and content of available material.

[Derek R.]

Carl is absolutely right. The interest that is clear within the forum members over the whole 'history and heritage' thread is made much the richer for details as are available to those who have acquired them from source. They often come as an 'antidote' to speculation and hearsay, though some of the 'hearsay' is in itself rich when coming from those with first hand knowledge of 'doing', rather than reading or writing. It's the human element that so often enriches and colours a basic canvas. Just have to watch the pigmentation mix at at times.

[mykaskin]

I am afraid this makes no sense to me at all, even if Mr Withey does lay claim to it (I suspect he was telling you what you wanted to hear). The two fast options for running an empty pair out of London whilst freeing up the butty steerer to do 'house work' are on cross straps or abreast, with the former being marginally faster than the latter.

 

The only time stemming is worth while is when both boats are loaded

 

edit - to add Captain Smiley

 

To be fair, I am more likely to mis-remember it, than Ron to tell porkies, though I'm sure some of his stories are embellished a little. It may have been a loaded pair, which would explain why he was pushing instead of towing, but he may have had needed more control of the pair (lot more traffic about in those days round there) than on cross-straps, or he was just "playing" because he could.

 

The stemmed pair BTW make a single fixed (to some degree) unit and could be thought of as one long boat (presumably with a bend in the middle).

 

Tiggers - I could always deck out the hold with my load on board, that would make a nice full length tug! Besides, I think PA is a little over priced...

 

Cheers,

 

Mike

[Blossom]

I have seen lots of boats stemmed around the BCN. As mentioned previously, Thomas Clayton's, especially the short haul work around the BCN from the various gasworks to Midland Tar Distillers at bottom of the crow, but always loaded boats. However with tugs and day boats, I've seen both loaded and empty day boats being stemmed in fact quite often a tug would be stemming one day boat while towing a second on cross straps/chain and only the tug driver in charge. One thing nobody had mentioned yet is the big advantage of stemming a boat, if you are towing on cross straps without a steerer and you go astern the towed boat slews round all across the cut as it tries to catch you up, if you chuck astern while stemming the pushed boat stops in a straight line in the middle of the cut, in fact if you get it wrong while stemming and the pushed boat goes out of line that's how you correct it, chuck astern and everything lines back up, simple

[alan_fincher]

So, (unless I've missed an answer somewhere!), where you see a published picture, and the boat being pushed is a proper butty, not a day boat, so presumably doesn't have its elum demounted, how did it work ?

 

Rudder tied so that it is in line with boat, and the push being on to the end of the rudder ? Sounds very unlikely ??

 

Rudder tied so that it is at 90 degrees to the boat, (hence creating a drag, and an uneven one, at that), to avoid motor pushing on the very end of it ? Also sounds rather unlikely ??

 

As I've said several times now, whilst it was clearly done, I'm really struggling to see the actual mechanics of it. I can't believe the effort in unshipping a full butty rudder would have been worth it, (it's hardly easy is it ?!?), just for short haul working. Unless a butty was only used in this way for long periods, and didn't need to repeatedly have the elum put back when it wasn't being stemmed.

 

Anybody actually care to answer that question - or even better still, to supply a picture that shows what bits of motor are pushing on what bits of butty, and how the two are roped together ?

[Blossom]

The bow of the motor/tug is put just one side of the starn of the boat to be pushed, until the tee stud on the bow lines up with the tee stud of the pushed boat. The two tee studs are then tightly tied together(on the BCN it would be with heavy chain. And that's it, simplicity, this leaves just enough flexibility between the two boats to allow the pushed boat to be steered by the opposite movements of the motor/tug's bows.

[Tam & Di]

One of the oddest (in my view!) of the BCN practices seems to have been moving motor / butty combinations over some distance by a process apparently known as "stemming".

 

This involved the motor pushing the butty, but with none of the paraphernalia normally used to turn a pusher tug and its "push" into a fairly rigid single unit, (or so it would seem ?.

 

I'm intrigued how it worked - you might expect the butty elum to be a bit of an impediment, but I have not seen an image that shows enough detail to give many clues.

 

But certainly I have recently seen the pictorial evidence of the practice, (.... I can't recall if anything has ever been published on CWDF ?).

 

I guess I'm also intrigued as to the particular reasons for doing it......

 

I saw Eric & Beryl do this up the Denham straight when Threefellows were doing the barrels. The point of it was not clear, as the butty had to be manhandled out of Denham, and then the motor tied off-set at the butty hatches to the tunnel hook and shackle in a way that would prevent there being any flex between the two boats, as this would leave them absolutely uncontrollable. At Widewater the whole thing had to be disconnected again. I'm not sure they did it more than the once.

 

On the Thames we frequently paid tug tolls with our craft, only one of which (our Bantam) was a tug in the conventional sense of the word. Given the etymology of the word 'tug' the concept of a pusher tug is slightly odd, but the term has been in use for a long time. No odder than a "wide narrow boat" though .

 

Edit to add: I wrote this before I noticed there were a lot of mails saying how it is done on with joeys. I must say I don't like the idea that there would be any flex between the two craft. I've done a fair bit of towage with tugs (i.e. not just a pair of boats) and also 'pushage' with the joey. I've always found it almost impossible to control the pushtow unless the tow is one rigid item. Once you've got that rigidity there is no problem towing a whole train of craft behind - the tug is just effectively rather longer than otherwise.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Tam & Di

[Pluto]

George Radford did say to me, many years ago, that he used to stem and stern his pair, I think suggesting that it was better than cross straps in some places, though I can't remember any further details. We were in the pub at the time, which may have some bearing on my lack of memory.

[alan_fincher]

The bow of the motor/tug is put just one side of the starn of the boat to be pushed, until the tee stud on the bow lines up with the tee stud of the pushed boat. The two tee studs are then tightly tied together(on the BCN it would be with heavy chain. And that's it, simplicity, this leaves just enough flexibility between the two boats to allow the pushed boat to be steered by the opposite movements of the motor/tug's bows.

I can only repeat, yet again, I'm looking at pictures where this is very clearly not the case.

 

If you can sight "The Birmingham Canal Navigations Through Time" (R. H. Davies), top of page 35, I would arge the TC(O) boats involved are more or less perfectly in line, and certainly not offset anything like enough to be tied as you describe here.

 

As it is a published photo, I don't feel it would be legitimate to post it here, unfortunately.

 

But that's why I keep asking - I really can't see how you could achieve the push, without the butty's elum giving problems.

 

Of course the norm may be as you describe, but it is not what I'm seeing in at least that picture.

[Pluto]

I do seem to remember George Radford saying that you had to have the stem and stern posts tied tightly against each other, ie not alongside each other, in order to steer properly, which supports what Alan is saying.