GUCCC liveries

[Derek R.]

They emptied there on the inside, with a conveyor over the canl

 

My memory only goes back to '79 of boating through Apsley, but I do remember a conveyor over the cut but thought that was to convey road delivered coal from the towpath side to the offside via the Henderson crane which stood where the mess of flats are now - is that what you meant? The boats unloading were on the offside. They had another small steam grab down at Nash before the gantry was built.

 

 

Alan Fincher may be able to add some as he worked for Dickinson's for a while.

 

Used to love going through there with the mills and their cast iron date plaques. Felt like a real bit of industry just sleeping.

 

After a pause for thought - maybe that's Nash after all? Although the boats ought to have been facing South if at Nash, and I doubt they would have turned loaded below the locks at Nash.

 

The dust jacket to Alan Faulkner's "The Grand Junction Canal" has a lovely watercolour depicting a Priestman steam grab unloading pair at Apsley (where I think that photo has been taken).

Edited January 22, 2015 by Derek R.

[Laurence Hogg]

Correct me if I'm wrong Laurence, but wasn't it you who confidently stated that the exhaust outlets on middle boats were " extremely forward set" ?

 

Are we now expected to take as gospel that they were canted back also ?

Look at what pictures exist, they all support the facts.

[IanM]

I find topics like this fascinating. I always had assumed that all the boats were painted the same then changed liveries all in one go but to find out that even the address was different on some.

[James Owen]

Look at what pictures exist, they all support the facts.

I have, and they aren't.

 

Unless you have pictures that show otherwise I'll take your rather ambiguous answer as confirmation that you haven't got a clue either way.

[pete harrison]

I find topics like this fascinating. I always had assumed that all the boats were painted the same then changed liveries all in one go but to find out that even the address was different on some.

The narrow boat fleet of the Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd. was in excess of 370 boats (in total but not all in commission at the same time). It would have been both impractical and unmanageable to change the livery, or even lettering of all the boats at the same time.

 

New boats coming into the fleet would have had the latest version of both livery and lettering, but these varied slightly depending on where the boat was built and who painted it. Any alterations would have been carried out on subsequent dockings at Bulls Bridge, and the Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd. carried these out fairly routinely every four years or so. Even these dockings produced minor differences and so nothing is 'set in stone' unless a detailed photograph of any particular boat is used as evidence.

 

The Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd. moved their office address several times, and four of these changes are reflected in the lettering of their boats. The final Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd. livery was introduced during the Second World War where the lettering on the main panel was reduced to G.U.C.C.Co. Ltd. with no address. This final version did still include the health registration details and fleet number, but often excluded the gauge number.

 

To add to the confusion many Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd. narrow boats went into storage shortly after delivery, and when re-entering carrying service may not have been full docked and repainted. This would mean that any version of the Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd. livery could be active within the carrying fleet at any time - and to take this a step further several boats were sold by the Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd. prior to nationalisation (01 January 1948) which would have been in any of the liveries applied over the previous 12 years or so. I have documented evidence that the small Ricky motor ARIES was still carrying a Grand Union Canal Carrying Company Ltd. livery in 1952, some 8 years and 2 owners after being first sold and in use as a maintenance boat on the Shropshire Union Canal.

 

edit - add a few details as well as the Captain

Edited January 22, 2015 by pete harrison

[ChimneyChain]

Thanks for that pete; as I don't think you get thanked enough.

 

Darren

[pete harrison]

Thanks for that pete; as I don't think you get thanked enough.

 

Darren

Thanks Darren, its always nice to be appreciated

 

Unfortunately almost everything I write on this Forum (or elsewhere) is only scratching the surface, and fleet liveries are always a nightmare irrespective of the carrier

[Laurence Hogg]

I have, and they aren't.

 

Unless you have pictures that show otherwise I'll take your rather ambiguous answer as confirmation that you haven't got a clue either way.

Take a look at the picture posted of Tucana, see how close the exhaust is to the front b/h and it is canted, so yes I do have a clue, I actually owned that boat!

There are pictures posted in the gallery on this forum if you can be bothered to go and look.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Laurence Hogg

[James Owen]

Take a look at the picture posted of Tucana, see how close the exhaust is to the front b/h and it is canted, so yes I do have a clue, I actually owned that boat!There are pictures posted in the gallery on this forum if you can be bothered to go and look.

Looks to be just forwards of the pigeon box to me, perhaps this is another of your 'only in hi-res' pictures that seem to back up your misguided "facts".

 

I wasn't aware you owned that boat complete with its original cabin so I fail to see how it helps your cause ??

[Derek R.]

Depending on the fit, a loose chimney might cant backwards, forwards or to the side. Just looks a bit bent to me.

[Laurence Hogg]

Looks to be just forwards of the pigeon box to me, perhaps this is another of your 'only in hi-res' pictures that seem to back up your misguided "facts".

 

I wasn't aware you owned that boat complete with its original cabin so I fail to see how it helps your cause ??

I have no "Cause" to help?? That's in your imagination.

I knew the boats over many years, particulary "Severn Dolphin (Taygeta)", the ones at Gloucester had original cabins on before being rebuilt. If you don't agree with my beliefs that's fine I am sure you can post evidence to show I am wrong. We had some original cabin parts left on Tucana (now scrapped) which concurred with the raised coming on port side engine room doors, a original slide and a forward blanked off hole in the roof.

 

The attitude portrayed in your posts appears that whatever I say you will contest so as far as I am concerned its up to you to do the research and prove your point. Good luck.

[Pluto]

When we were having Kennet repainted in Canal Transport livery we had exactly the same problem. I couldn't find two photos with the same livery, given that addresses and telephone numbers changed, and each boatyard had its own particular style. In the end, we just did something we thought appropriate, based on research.

 

[James Owen]

I have no "Cause" to help?? That's in your imagination.

I knew the boats over many years, particulary "Severn Dolphin (Taygeta)", the ones at Gloucester had original cabins on before being rebuilt. If you don't agree with my beliefs that's fine I am sure you can post evidence to show I am wrong. We had some original cabin parts left on Tucana (now scrapped) which concurred with the raised coming on port side engine room doors, a original slide and a forward blanked off hole in the roof.

 

The attitude portrayed in your posts appears that whatever I say you will contest so as far as I am concerned its up to you to do the research and prove your point. Good luck.

My research is based around my current boat you see Laurence, which emphatically does not concur with yours.

[Tam & Di]

Looks to be just forwards of the pigeon box to me, perhaps this is another of your 'only in hi-res' pictures that seem to back up your misguided "facts".

 

I wasn't aware you owned that boat complete with its original cabin so I fail to see how it helps your cause ??

 

You may be completely right and Laurence completely wrong, but it would be useful if you put up something to confirm what you are saying rather than just snotty remarks

 

My research is based around my current boat you see Laurence, which emphatically does not concur with yours.

 

In what way(s) does it differ?

 

Tam

Edited January 23, 2015 by Tam & Di

[alan_fincher]

You may be completely right and Laurence completely wrong, but it would be useful if you put up something to confirm what you are saying rather than just snotty remarks

 

A shame that even a thread like this has to descend to people throwing insults at each other, IMO.

 

I'm genuinely interested in the subject, but not in watching the spats.

 

At the moment, not armed with the materials that wither Laurence or James may have, I remain thoroughly confused, I must admit.

 

It does seem to be the case that in the past Laurence has argued that an image definitely shows a "Middle Northwich", because the exhaust is set further forward, (even though others were confident the picture was of a Woolwich boat).

 

In the picture in this thread, if it is the exhaust we are looking at, then to me it is not set any further forward than on other GU boats with their original engines.

 

It would be good if either could publish the evidence in sufficient definition that we could make up our own minds.

 

What do we make of this one then from here in CRT digital archive?

 

Definitely a Middle Northwch, but, I think, uncertainty as to which one. I don't think it is "Sickle", even though the Bulls Bridge location might otherwise have made that likely. Most likely Tycho or Sextans, I think. Pete Harrison has suggested date likely to be beween 1944 & 1957, which clearly is quite a large range, but almost certainly means original water cooled engine still present.

 

Where do we judge the exhaust stack on that to be?

 

Edited January 23, 2015 by alan_fincher

[BuckbyLocks]

Alan, the fact that this picture comes from the Eily Gayford Collection suggests that it was taken in late 44 or 45. Unfortunately there was no detail on the copy I saw.

[madcat]

Yes I thought James was a bit sharp with Lawrence and Tam And Di beat me to adding a gentle reminder that it's best to play nicely.

 

Anyway gentle reminder to all , me included who can get arsey at times. " play nicely" we're a bit too old for miss to slap the back of our legs and despatch us to the naughty corner. ? ?

 

 

edit to remove stuff that belongs in another thread.

Edited January 23, 2015 by madcat

[madcat]

in wrong thread

Edited January 23, 2015 by madcat

[alan_fincher]

Alan, the fact that this picture comes from the Eily Gayford Collection suggests that it was taken in late 44 or 45. Unfortunately there was no detail on the copy I saw.

 

Yes,

 

When I first was sent this photo, I had no idea of source, but if it is indded as it says, that seems likely.

 

Hard to pick out any detail on the ice boat, but my assumption is that it may well be in whatever plain livery the MOWT had painted it. Even without the Kit Gayford connection, it certainly feels "pre nationalisation" to me.

 

Because of certain characteristics of the ice boat conversion I feel it has to be Tycho or Sextans, and not Theophilus or Sickle.

[James Owen]

If I can work out how to post pictures later on I'll see what photos I can find....

[alan_fincher]

If I can work out how to post pictures later on I'll see what photos I can find....

I'm happy to post anything that anybody would like posted, if they don't want to take the "how to do it" challenge.

 

PM me if I can help, and I'll reply with a suitable email address.

 

Alan

[Laurence Hogg]

This is what is at hand this afternoon, the colour shot is of Sharpness docks in 1972, the nearest motor is not clearly identified but is a MN, the one in the background is B10 Zodiac (which is todays "Tucana"). Although not that clear you can make out the exhaust on the nearest boats engine room roof, well forward.

 

 

And taken same day from other end Tucana as she was:

 

 

The identity of this boat isn't shown on the picture but the exhaust is again well forward IMHO:

 

 

I managed to obtain a higher res picture of Tucana at Apsley and do agree that the exhaust may not be canted, indeed it may not be the exhaust pipe at all seen now in clearer form.

 

 

edited several times as pictures turned up!

Edited January 23, 2015 by Laurence Hogg

[BuckbyLocks]

No doubt about the source Alan. There are three photos in the sequence clearly taken at the same time, but only the one that shows whichever of the shortened boats it is has got into the Archives. The butty shown in front of it has nearly passed through the Bridge in the third. No sign of the tug in either of the others. Have no rights to the pix so cannot copy them for you.

[alan_fincher]

No doubt about the source Alan. There are three photos in the sequence clearly taken at the same time, but only the one that shows whichever of the shortened boats it is has got into the Archives. The butty shown in front of it has nearly passed through the Bridge in the third. No sign of the tug in either of the others. Have no rights to the pix so cannot copy them for you.

The CRT Digital Archive doesn't exactly help by listing this picture as being on the BCN, when it is very obviously Bulls Bridge!

 

(They have been told, but it is not corrected)..

 

 

 

 

The identity of this boat isn't shown on the picture but the exhaust is again well forward IMHO:

 

The boat in that picture can only possibly be "Theophilus" or "Sickle", and my very strong money is on it being "Theophilus". Edited January 23, 2015 by alan_fincher

[Derek R.]

The ice breaker/tug being passed in Laurence's set is probably SICKLE, and the set of images on CRT that are stated as being boats waiting at a stoppage by lock 70 - Kings Langley are most definitely by the Apsley Mills below lock 67 - so called 'cuckoo lock' (no idea why - ask Ian T.).

 

As to engine roofs, I sketched TYCHO's plated over bits once, and the current Petter exhaust comes out in front of the pigeon box, though if it did a 90° bend from the manifold straight up, it would come out a bit further back and beside the box. However, there is a welded in plate ahead of the pigeon box and dead centre along the roof slap between the engine room slides. But it's 10" in diameter. That maybe due to rubbish welding or corrosion causing the plated hole to be bigger than the original exhaust (if indeed it was an exhaust outlet), and from what I've seen of TYCHO in other shots pre '58 and presumably with an RN in there, the exhaust has been offset.

 

I'd put an image up, but photobucket is playing up right now.