Which "middle Northwich" Icebreaker Is This? (Definitely For The Working Boat History Enthusiasts Only!)

[alan_fincher]

(Reproduced from "Sickle's" Facebook Page......

 

(Photograph courtesy of Leighton Buzzard & District Archaeological and History Society)

 

I first became aware of this fascinating photograph when I saw it published in a local history book about a year ago. I have been desperately trying to source a copy of it since, and yesterday was finally successful.

The four "Middle Northwich" boats converted to icebreaker tugs in 1942 do not seem to feature in many archive photographs, and those I have seen are often indistinct and/or have copyright / ownership issues. This picture is very much clearer than most, with the benefit that the location is very obvious, (by Whichello's Wharf, Linslade, on the Grand Union), and also that it can be fairly accurately dated by the other boats in the picture.

The pair passing are the Wyvern Shipping "motor" "Heather Bell", (formerly owned by Chrisopher & Daphne Marsh, and much written about), and butty Elizabeth, which is actually itself a "Grand Union" "Middle Northwich" of the same class as "Sickle". In fact "Elizabeth" was originally "Triagulum", (originally intended butty to "Taygeta", and later got renamed again to be Willow Wren's "Kestrel". As "Elizabeth only worked for Wyvern Shipping between 1954 and mid 1956, the photograph can be placed to within a couple of years. (Thanks to Pete Harrison for the detailed information on this).

The ice breaker pictured shows a frontal shot of a boat still carrying its ice ram, but, not at this stage, the A frames and rocker bars over the hold. So which of the four is it? Well there are detailed differences in the position of the horizontal bracing pieces either side of the ram, and both "Sextans" and "Tycho" had this set lower, and still retained a full length "guard", (rubbing strake), above. "Sickle" and "Theophilus" on the other hand had the bracing set slightly higher, meaning the top guard had to be cut short, (both remain exactly the same to this day). So this boat is definitely either "Sickle" or "Theophilus".

Whilst I would love it to be our "Sickle" my gut feeling is that it is not. Pictures of Sickle from 1957, (so maybe only 2 years later), show a boat with a full A frame and rocker bar, but by then with the ice ram removed. Although the frame and bar may easily have been able to be added and removed, why would you reinstate it if the ice blade had been removed? Additionally the 1957 photos show a boat where the "back end rail", (the bar on the front of the engine room with a ring on), is higher up the cabin front.

I am strongly inclined to think the boat in the picture is "Theophilus", rather than "Sickle", but with no other known pictures of "Theophilus" from that area to compare to, that must remain a "best guess" at this stage.

However the picture still gives a very good idea of how "Sickle" may have looked at this time, albeit you would need to add the A-frame and rocking bar, and raise that back end rail, I think!

[Timleech]

Whilst I would love it to be our "Sickle" my gut feeling is that it is not. Pictures of Sickle from 1957, (so maybe only 2 years later), show a boat with a full A frame and rocker bar, but by then with the ice ram removed. Although the frame and bar may easily have been able to be added and removed, why would you reinstate it if the ice blade had been removed? Additionally the 1957 photos show a boat where the "back end rail", (the bar on the front of the engine room with a ring on), is higher up the cabin front.

 

 

 

 

I don't know the construction details, but I imagine the A frame and bar would only have been mounted when actually needed for ice breaking.

It would to my mind have been a bit daft to have an impediment like that for most of the year.

 

As for reinstating it after the blade has been removed - why, to go ice breaking, of course

 

Tim

[Chris Pink]

Dredging wasn't a popular sport in them days either then?

Pete Harrison - Your inbox is full.

[alan_fincher]

 

 

I don't know the construction details, but I imagine the A frame and bar would only have been mounted when actually needed for ice breaking.

It would to my mind have been a bit daft to have an impediment like that for most of the year.

 

As for reinstating it after the blade has been removed - why, to go ice breaking, of course

 

Tim

There is some evidence that "Sickle's" A frames attached to the wooden deck, unlike, for example, Renton, where the front one at least was welded on, and could not have been removed.

 

So, yes, it is possible that it could have been demounted at times.

 

However 1957 picture of "Sickle" shows A frames and bars in place in what looks like a summer setting, (their are camping boats in the same picture), so she did carry them when not breaking ice.

[pete harrison]

Pete Harrison - Your inbox is full.

It should be O.K. now.

[Derek R.]

An impediment to what though? Their main duties when not engaged in breaking ice, and you could rock a Middle Northwich without any bar, would be on towing and maintenance, though that bar has been mighty useful when heaving one's self out of the hold! (But a curse when you bang your head on it!) Lifting a few boards would allow enough room to load bricks, cement and ironwork with the rocking bar in place unless you wanted something craned in like a mixer. I reckon once off - it stayed off, and as SICKLE's back end rail was indeed a little higher my money would be on it being THEOPHILUS. I know RENTON was used on maintenance in that area later, but where was 'it' at this time?

 

It's a guess, but I don't think any had the 'A' frames fixed to the wood on the deck. TYCHO's went through such decking as there would have been, and was riveted to a hefty RSJ athwartships. I feel sure SICKLE's were fixed to the gunnels.

 

There's a shot of an Ice breaker ascending Knowle in the fiftie's copyrighted to BTF Science & Society, and that had only a half length rocking bar. Might have been SEXTANS or THEOPHILUS. Did SEXTANS have a raised bracket to take the aft end of the long bar? Perhaps only SICKLE and THEOPHILUS did, in which case Alan's image at Linslade is THEOPHILUS. The support plate for the ram is exactly where it is on THEOPHILUS today.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Derek R.

[Laurence Hogg]

I reckon thats "Tycho" it seems to match early pictures of it in Matty's fleet, the ram certainly looks correct.

[alan_fincher]

I reckon thats "Tycho" it seems to match early pictures of it in Matty's fleet, the ram certainly looks correct.

 

If definitely is not "Tycho" or "Sextans", for the reasons stated, (the position of the ram bracket, and whether that forced cutting away of the top guard.

 

It can only possibly be "Sickle" or "Theophilus" - I am absolutely convinced of this.

 

The fact that the back end rail is lower than "Sickle" has in subsequent pics, and the absence of A frame or rocking bar still make me fairly certain it is "Theophilus."

I know RENTON was used on maintenance in that area later, but where was 'it' at this time?

 

I don't personally believe Renton ever had a massive ice ram like the 4 Middle Northwich icebreaker conversions.

 

I think it only ever had the extended blade it carried right into the 1970s, (and which is allegedly now part of its ballast).

 

I think a confusion with Renton is only ever possible when looking at more obscure pictures of the ice-breakers from the rear, so you can't see the ram/blade arrangements at all. What I don't know about Renton is at what point it lost its engine room in favour of the engine being under deck boards, but I know it was already that way at the start of the 1970s.

 

Edited July 28, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Derek R.]

Sorry Laurence, it's not TYCHO -

 

 

- and RENTON's blade was different - without any plate to the fore. I wonder if RENTON was in fact the first to be so modified, and the other type (as in TYCHO) was deemed to be a better design.

 

RENTON lost its engine room? When we saw it around Leighton in the eighties on maintenance (and very smart) it looked like any other working boat with no sign of an under deck engine. Why would they have done that??

[carlt]

Why would they have done that??

Increase hold space, living quarters or, possibly, to move the centre of gravity backwards to improve ice climbing properties.

[Derek R.]

Ah! I presumed under deck meant under the planked over deck. Yes, it possibly went in the back cabin space same as SICKLE. Silly me.

[alan_fincher]

This is "Renton" in the early 1970s, (my copyright)......

 

 

It has a conventionally sized back cabin in wood. The engine, (an AS3 possibly, but would need to check), is where it would be if there was a traditional engine room, but instead the engine room is removed, and the engine is under boards, which therefore extend back about an extra 5.5 feet over those on the "Middle Northwich" Ice-Breaker conversions. (With certain "raised bits" visible above!).

 

No idea when the engine was so treated, but "Sickle" got her AS3 in 1957, so "Renton" may well have been similar.

 

"Renton" here retains the front A-frame, which is attached to the steel. The evidence is that although "Sickle's" looked similar, it actually sat on top of the wooden deck boards.

 

Also note that Renton has completely standard Northwich "Town" arrangements for guards at the front, with no evidence of additional plates ever having been added to brace up a larger ice blade. I therefore believe "Renton's" ram was always the much smaller blade shown here, and that she never shared the arrangements added to "Sextans", "Sickle", "Theophilus" & "Tycho".

 

One of "Tycho's" other former owners has contacted me this morning and confirmed that no way is that the boat pictured at Linslade. (Incidentally I have never yet seen a picture of "Tycho" with a back end rail present, I think.)

Edited July 29, 2013 by alan_fincher

[RLWP]

The evidence is that although "Sickle's" looked similar, it actually sat on top of the wooden deck boards.

 

 

If it was attached to a board, could the board have been turned upside down to put the 'A' frame out of the way in the hold?

 

Richard

Edited July 29, 2013 by RLWP

[Derek R.]

How memory plays tricks! 'Tis clearer now.

 

(Snipped)

(Incidentally I have never yet seen a picture of "Tycho" with a back end rail present, I think.)

 

Nor me. Not even in Matty's colours though the holes for the bolts are there. Probably re-cycled at Bulls Bridge in '42.

[alan_fincher]

It has only just dawned on me that the cabin on "Renton" has a porthole where normally no back cabin would, (unless you wanted a well illuminated table cupboard, of course!......).

 

Of course such cabin as it had is unlikely to have had the normal arrangements and layout, as nobody would ever have lived in it......

[Laurence Hogg]

Having looked again (without the red wine) it isnt Tycho. None of my pictures show Tycho with a back end rail either. My money would be on "Theiphilius" as in that picture the exhaust is still in the original position ahead of the pigeon box also the raised rocking bar socket is unusual.