Early Engines for narrowboats

[Heartland]

This website often talks about the mechanisation of canal boats and this proved to be of immense use to those working narrowboats. Yet those who made such engines were quite diverse and initially were based on either a type of motor car engine or the hot bulb (semi diesel type).

 

How much is known of the difference? and the percentage of each type used on our narrow waterways. I gather firms like Thorneycroft, Parsons and Glenifer Motors made the petrol or paraffin type of "motor car" engine, whilst firms like Bolinder; Jones, Burton & Co,; Torbina Engine Co and Norris, Henty and Gardner Ltd made examples of the hot bulb engine.

 

There was also the suction gas motor, where Thorneycrofts made at least one trial and the electric powered boats. With electricity the well known example is the Harecastle Tug Boats, but there was also a trial near Kidderminster on the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal.

 

Ray Shill

[Laurence Hogg]

This website often talks about the mechanisation of canal boats and this proved to be of immense use to those working narrowboats. Yet those who made such engines were quite diverse and initially were based on either a type of motor car engine or the hot bulb (semi diesel type).

 

How much is known of the difference? and the percentage of each type used on our narrow waterways. I gather firms like Thorneycroft, Parsons and Glenifer Motors made the petrol or paraffin type of "motor car" engine, whilst firms like Bolinder; Jones, Burton & Co,; Torbina Engine Co and Norris, Henty and Gardner Ltd made examples of the hot bulb engine.

 

There was also the suction gas motor, where Thorneycrofts made at least one trial and the electric powered boats. With electricity the well known example is the Harecastle Tug Boats, but there was also a trial near Kidderminster on the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal.

 

Ray Shill

 

The portable engines which sat on horse boat roofs are worthy of mention as well as oddities like Hookes patent reversing rudder. The electric boat at Kiddimenster must have been dodgy with wires at head height, at least the Harecastle tug was battery with a curious signalling system using a trolley pole.

[springy]

The semi-diesels were generally purpose built marine units - often the smallest ones in a particular companies range,

when weight is not a prime consideration but reliabilty and simplicity are, you can rely on substantial engineering.

 

Its my impression that Petrol/Paraffin engines (i.e. spark ignition) from various manufacturers were tried but didn't

really gain wide acceptance - suprising given that it was a popular choice for tractor propulsion. Maybe reliability of

the ignition system was part of the issue, although I would also expect them to need a reduction gearbox to provide

sensible shaft speed/torque profile, whilst the semi-diesels may have had reversing gear the shaft would have run

at engine speed.

 

springy

[alan_fincher]

 

The electric boat at Kiddimenster must have been dodgy with wires at head height, at least the Harecastle tug was battery with a curious signalling system using a trolley pole.

Interesting.

 

I'm not saying that is wrong, but it was not my understanding until you posted this.

 

I thought I had read that the tug did pick up current overhead, but that it was connected to, and charged the batteries on the battery boat, effectively smoothing the demand for current.

 

If I'm wrong, how was the trolley pole and wires used for what you describe as a signalling system, please? I'm intrigued.

 

(I thought I had seen pictures of the tug operating with no battery boat - perhaps I've imagined that!)

 

EDIT:

 

Clearly not a definitive source, but you need to tell CRT, (from this page.)

 

However, between 1914 and 1954 an electric tug powered from an overhead wire inside the tunnel pulled boats through.

 

 

(It would need to be TWO wires, wouldn't it!)

Edited November 10, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Paul H]

As I understand it, the Harecastle tug was originally battery-powered from an accumulator boat (there were two - one on charge whilst the other was in use) from 1914. This was however changed in 1931 when the LMSR, by then the owners of the Trent and Mersey, introduced the overhead tram-style electric pick up. Pictures of this in operation might be confusing because in later years a decked butty was always towed through - effectively as a guards van with accommodation for a second employee who collected tickets and checked that everything was safe. If this boat still carried batteries under the deck, they were no longer in use. The tug service was discontinued in 1954.

 

Paul

[by'eck]

This website often talks about the mechanisation of canal boats and this proved to be of immense use to those working narrowboats. Yet those who made such engines were quite diverse and initially were based on either a type of motor car engine or the hot bulb (semi diesel type).

 

How much is known of the difference? and the percentage of each type used on our narrow waterways. I gather firms like Thorneycroft, Parsons and Glenifer Motors made the petrol or paraffin type of "motor car" engine, whilst firms like Bolinder; Jones, Burton & Co,; Torbina Engine Co and Norris, Henty and Gardner Ltd made examples of the hot bulb engine.

 

There was also the suction gas motor, where Thorneycrofts made at least one trial and the electric powered boats. With electricity the well known example is the Harecastle Tug Boats, but there was also a trial near Kidderminster on the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal.

 

Ray Shill

 

It seems that many engine manufacturers started by producing marine or sometimes stationary engines. Fishing boats and the demand for electrical power offered a ready market before the motor car became a viable one.

 

Most were dual fuel petrol/paraffin engines with power outputs listed for both. I would imagine therefore such manufacturers may have developed car engines based on marine engine experience, not the other way around.

 

Interesting point being that the later compression ignition oil engine was perfected by an Englishman, Herbert Akroyd-Stuart with his first patent being taken out in 1885. Rudolf Diesel tried solid, liquid and gas as fuels building a working engine running on coal dust before taking out his first English patent in 1892 for an oil engine.

 

Kevin Whittle in one of his books points out tongue in cheek, that our canal boats are therefore powered by Akroyds and run on Akroyd

[alan_fincher]

As I understand it, the Harecastle tug was originally battery-powered from an accumulator boat (there were two - one on charge whilst the other was in use) from 1914. This was however changed in 1931 when the LMSR, by then the owners of the Trent and Mersey, introduced the overhead tram-style electric pick up. Pictures of this in operation might be confusing because in later years a decked butty was always towed through - effectively as a guards van with accommodation for a second employee who collected tickets and checked that everything was safe. If this boat still carried batteries under the deck, they were no longer in use. The tug service was discontinued in 1954.

 

Paul

Well that's at least 3 different versions then!

 

It does seem that web sources seem to corroborate this version, but then they all tend to look like one explanation got written, then most of the others web-sites just copied it!

 

In pictures of the tug following an overhead wire, the decked over butty it is towing always looks heavily laden, perhaps with batteries, (in use or not), but then I guess given headroom constraints having it well ballasted down to keep it away from the roof makes sense.

 

What I don't understand is that if the tug is being powered from the overhead wires like a trolley bus, why does there only appear to be one wire in photogtaphs.

 

You can't have a boat powered by electric motors without two conductors supplying the current from the power source, so were there in fact two conductors, (which trolleybuses have to have, of course), because it doesn't look like it.

 

If not, where on earth was the return connection? It is not like a tram, running on steel rail that can be utilised to provide the "return".

 

Even if the overhead wire was instead, as Laurence suggests, part of some electrical signalling device, you would stil need a return conductor, wouldn't you?

 

I still can't see how it works, whatever it is!

 

Best picture I can find - looks like just a single overhead conductor to me?

 

 

From this page.

 

Is that another tug tied up on the non-towpath side? Looks like it might be?

 

EDIT:

 

Another from this site....

 

Edited November 10, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Timleech]

I suppose the water could be used as a return conductor for low current duties such as signalling, I think it contains lots of impurities including iron oxide to help it along.

Propulsion or battery charging would be another matter, though - might make the water fizz a bit!

 

Tim

[alan_fincher]

I suppose the water could be used as a return conductor for low current duties such as signalling,

Tim

 

I'm curious for Lawrence to explain his signalling suggestion.

 

Looks like an awful lot of kit for a bit of simple signalling.

 

As you can allegedly now adequately now communicate with the tunnel keepers just by horn blasting, surely that would have been a cheaper alternative.

 

But I certainly can't see how you can power a boat by a single conductor.

 

Was this a tug that was propeller powered, or one of those that dragged itself along a submerged chain or cable? If a steel cable were involved, I suppose it is just about possible that that could have been used, even though underwater?

 

(As you will easily guess, I have no idea at all, but have always wondered about an arrangement that seems to show only one connection to the tug!).

[Paul H]

The tug dragged itself along on a chain so this is likely to be the earth return.

 

Paul

[alan_fincher]

The tug dragged itself along on a chain so this is likely to be the earth return.

 

Paul

 

A cable I might believe could be used as a conductor - a chain, then I'm really struggling. There would need to be good electrical continuity between every single link between tug and what was powering it - that is a hell of a lot of links!

[Derek R.]

Grab hold of an HT lead on a spark ignition engine with a wet hand. Water is a good conductor.

I wonder if there were many fish around the tunnel area.

[The Pipe]

I rember talking to Phil Weaver (Steam on Canals) about this and I think he said it was a cable tug. Which would act as the return.

I could be wrong as I'm trying to recall a conversation from the 70's.

[alan_fincher]

Grab hold of an HT lead on a spark ignition engine with a wet hand. Water is a good conductor.

I wonder if there were many fish around the tunnel area.

Yes, but that is high volts, very low current, and only a thin film of water.

 

In the case of the tug we are talking low voltage, bog currents, and needing to use over a mile of water as a path. Not a prayer that could work, even if what was in the water made it more conductive.

 

So does anybody know what the actual score was?

I rember talking to Phil Weaver (Steam on Canals) about this and I think he said it was a cable tug. Which would act as the return.

I could be wrong as I'm trying to recall a conversation from the 70's.

Using a cable it was hauling itself along by I might just believe.

 

I thought I had seem chain stated elsewhere though, and I can't imagine that could work as an adequate electrical path.

[The Pipe]

However it was used it requires a return path for the current and the single trolley does not provide it. Someone should have some hard facts, it worked for 40 years!

[Timleech]

Yes, but that is high volts, very low current, and only a thin film of water.

 

In the case of the tug we are talking low voltage, bog currents, and needing to use over a mile of water as a path. Not a prayer that could work, even if what was in the water made it more conductive.

 

So does anybody know what the actual score was?

Using a cable it was hauling itself along by I might just believe.

 

I thought I had seem chain stated elsewhere though, and I can't imagine that could work as an adequate electrical path.

Not sure about bog currents, bogs do probably offer less resistance than cleaner water.

 

Just postulating some figures - what horsepower would the tug have needed? I'm guessing that it might have been as little as 10hp, as direct haulage is much more efficient than propeller towage.

Voltage? for safety, 50 Volts. 10hp = 7500W, so at 50 Volts, 150A. If they also carried onboard batteries, and the supply was to relieve the load on the batteries (and so wouldn't matter too much if intermittent), maybe half that. Power consumption may well have been less once the tow was under way. Of course, elfinsafety was just a dream in those days, could possibly have been as much as 100V.

 

What did trams & trolleybuses run at? I imagine rather more than that.

 

Tim

[The Pipe]

Not sure about bog currents, bogs do probably offer less resistance than cleaner water.

 

Just postulating some figures - what horsepower would the tug have needed? I'm guessing that it might have been as little as 10hp, as direct haulage is much more efficient than propeller towage.

Voltage? for safety, 50 Volts. 10hp = 7500W, so at 50 Volts, 150A. If they also carried onboard batteries, and the supply was to relieve the load on the batteries (and so wouldn't matter too much if intermittent), maybe half that. Power consumption may well have been less once the tow was under way. Of course, elfinsafety was just a dream in those days, could possibly have been as much as 100V.

 

What did trams & trolleybuses run at? I imagine rather more than that.

 

Tim

Blackpool trams are on either 600 or 660 volts DC unless they have changed things in the last 40 years.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Jim Evans

[andywatson]

This might well be another case of the mining industry influencing the canals.

The steel cable technology was well developed for use by the mining industry at this time.

Example: shaft winding and underground cable hauled transport where long cable lengths are used.

 

Also, given the loads imposed by pulling a few boats along, I would not expect it to be a particularly large diameter cable. This is important as the drum to carry and deploy a large diameter cable would not fit on a boat within the tunnel.

 

There is a possibilty that shorter lengths could be spliced together although this might make the drive system on the boat hiccup a bit.

Probably the experienced tug drivers would know where to expect the joints (if any).

 

I would expect that the cable would be periodically inspected for damage and corrosion and that over 40 years the cable might have been changed a few times so maybe records or even some scrap rope might be found.

I wonder if the cable anchorage points at the tunnel ends can still be located.

 

My money is on the cable.

 

(Coal face cutting machines haul themselves along chains though)

Edited November 11, 2013 by andywatson

[alan_fincher]

However it was used it requires a return path for the current and the single trolley does not provide it. Someone should have some hard facts, it worked for 40 years!

Except that, unless I'm misunderstanding, Laurence was suggesting that the tug was battery poweed, and the overhead pole and wire only part of a signalling system.

 

I know that's nor what everyone else was saying, but would hope Laurence might come back with something to support his suggestion.

 

I agree someone should have hard facts, but so far nobody has come up with any, I think!

[andywatson]

Blackpool trams are on either 600 or 660 volts DC unless they have changed things in the last 40 years.

This is consistent with the Manx Electric Railway which is 550 V DC.

[alan_fincher]

tram voltage

 

This is consistent with the Manx Electric Railway which is 550 V DC.

Yes, I think even "historic" trams Beamish, the BCLM and elsewhere operate at these kind of voltages.

 

I have a feeling trolley buses were similar.

 

Modern equipment may be higher voltage than "heritage" stuff, possibly?

 

However even by the safety standards of the day, I doubt anything this high would have been considered for an unguarded supply in a low tunnel where avoiding any human contact would have been very hard.

 

I would have thought the voltages would be massively less than this, and hence even if not high amounts of power were demanded, current requirement would still be still fairly high, and need significant conductors with a "there and back" path to a supply of potentially well over 2 miles.

[Heartland]

Regarding the Harecastle Tugs, I understand once the overhead wire was provided, only a single wire was required, the earth "being" the canal.

 

Ray Shill

[Paul H]

Rolt describes being hauled through Harecastle by the tug in Narrow Boat.

 

"Drawing its current from an overhead cable, it has no propeller, but hauls itself along a second cable laid in the bed of the canal."

 

 

 

He describes the experience in some detail and were there a signalling system or batteries in use, he, being an engineer, would have mentioned it methinks.

 

There is quite a detailed article about the tug in Waterways World in June 1977.

 

Paul.

[Derek R.]

London Trolleybuses were 600V DC, and of course due to them running on rubber tyres needed two wires. Trams are earthed trough the rails.

 

I doubt there'd be a drum of cable on the boat, it picks up the cable/chain and feeds it through tensioned rollers to be lowered again. Anchored both ends. A chain does sound more likely - something to grip on.

 

Electric current can travel through water, fish are stunned that way, and people can die from dropping electric appliances in their baths.

Conjecture I know, but might there have been a negative cable running the length of the tunnel fixed to the wall below water level?

 

Have to research boat trams!

 

Ah! Rolt - yes, he would have known.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Derek R.

[andywatson]

Pardon me chaps. I wasn't clear in my previous post.

-My reference to a large cable drum was in the construction phase (ie a large diameter cable couldn't even be put into the tunnel in the first place). You've got to build it before you can use it. Therefore a small diameter cable would be used.

 

I had in mind a cable anchored at both ends of the tunnel which the boat pulled itself along.

This would be by means of the boat's motorised rollers which can be arranged to give sufficient grip.

Although a chain can be gripped more positively I think a cable is more likely for current transmissionand strength.

 

With regard to high voltage overhead wires in close proximity to operators, this system has been used on small trolley locomotives in South African gold mines at least until the late 70's. People only got fried when they stood on the rails and touched the overhead wire.

Yes it did happen... (I won't enlarge on that)

 

So long as the pos and neg sides are reasonably well insulated from each other the neg cable in the water can still work without stunning fish.

(Birds can perch on 36,000 V wires and get away with it.)

 

 

As an aside: No one has mentioned this yet but I include it for interest as I am sure it would have worked.

-A cable haulage system commonly used in mines (which I don't think was used here), has a loop of cable which runs round a return wheel at the far end. The conveyance (boat in this case) is fixed to (or grips) the cable which is driven from a convenient point where motive power is safely and easily available. This could be outside the tunnel end. The winding engine driver sits here and controls the motor, cable and conveyance according to signals from the driver.

I don't think this system can have been used here though as there would be evidence of the winding/drive machinery.

Edited November 11, 2013 by andywatson