How many steam narrowboats?
C. Marin Faure
I am aware of steam-powered narrowboats like PRESIDENT and MONARCH,
although in my ignorance I do not know if these boats were steam-powered
from the outset or were converted to steam. But my question concerns the
popularity and number of working steam-powered narrowboats in the 1800s
and early 1900s. I have read and seen photos of plenty of horse-drawn
boats, of course, and then after the turn of the century boats powered
with internal combustion engines became increasingly popular. But I'm
curious how many working boats used steam? Not having ever seen any of
the current steam-powered narrowboats, I do not know how much space the
boiler, engine,and coal supply take up. Perhaps they need no more space
than an internal combustion engine. But can anyone tell me how widely
used steam was as a power source on the working boats?
C. Marin Faure
author, Flying A Floatplane
Mike Stevens
C. Marin Faure wrote:
>
> But I'm > curious how many working boats used steam? Not having ever seen any of
> the current steam-powered narrowboats, I do not know how much space the
> boiler, engine,and coal supply take up. Perhaps they need no more space
> than an internal combustion engine. But can anyone tell me how widely
> used steam was as a power source on the working boats?
>
It never accounted for a big proportion iof the traffic, for exactly the
reason you suggest : the boiler etc cut down the cargo capacity by (I
believe) about 30%. The best-known and biggest fleet of steamers was
that of FMC (of which both PRESIDENT and MONARCH are examples). They
made steam pay by using it on fly runs between London and various
Midlands destinations with high-value or perishable cargoes for which
they could charge a premium rate. As soon a semi-diesel engines became
available, they switched to them. Hence both PRESIDENT and MONARCH have
been re-converted to steam. There are quite a few ex-FMC steamers
around, some still with the Bolinders that were put in them in the
1920s.
Some other carriers used steam. There was article in one of the mags
recently about the cement firms in the Stockton area who did their own
vcarrying. SOme of them used steam for a while.
Mike Stevens
nb Felis Catus II
Peter Turvey
My unserdtandin is that steam narroboats, apart from the FMC ones, were not
all that common (I am excluding tugs). Onlly the Leeds & Liverpool canal made
widespread use of steamers, but there were wide boats - more room for
machinery, less loss of carryning space. Find a copy of Steam on Canals.
Sorry, no more details - my copy is not to hand.
C. Marin Faure wrote:
> I am aware of steam-powered narrowboats like PRESIDENT and MONARCH,
> although in my ignorance I do not know if these boats were steam-powered
> from the outset or were converted to steam. But my question concerns the
> popularity and number of working steam-powered narrowboats in the 1800s
> and early 1900s. I have read and seen photos of plenty of horse-drawn
> boats, of course, and then after the turn of the century boats powered
> with internal combustion engines became increasingly popular. But I'm
> curious how many working boats used steam? Not having ever seen any of
> the current steam-powered narrowboats, I do not know how much space the
> boiler, engine,and coal supply take up. Perhaps they need no more space
> than an internal combustion engine. But can anyone tell me how widely
> used steam was as a power source on the working boats?
>
Martin Ludgate
In message <35816847...@nmsi.ac.uk>, Peter Turvey
<p.tu...@nmsi.ac.uk> writes
>Find a copy of Steam on Canals.
>Sorry, no more details - my copy is not to hand.
'Steam on Canals' by CP Weaver and CR Weaver, pub David and
Charles, date not given (strange!) but sometime in the mid 1980s
I think, ISBN 0-7153-8218-7
--
Martin Ludgate
Roger Murray
>
> C. Marin Faure wrote:
> >
> > But I'm > curious how many working boats used steam?
To enlarge a bit on from Mike Stevens reply. The unfortunate thing was
that steam came to the canals too late. Steam in fact closed the door
after the horse had bolted. The emergence and rapid growth of the
railways began to be a serious threat to the canals as early as the mid
nineteenth century. There were various efforts to operate steam driven
boats but none of them were really successful. Partially due to a
resistance against change by the well established canal companies, plus
the belief that steam driven boats would damage the canal banks and clay
bottoms. However the main reason was that it was difficult to design a
steam driven boat which would have the power to haul cargo in such
shallow waters.
The slow reving, low torque steam engine needed a very big diameter and
pitch propeller to be effective, and the ones they had were virtually
useless in the shallow canal. Propeller design was only in it's
infancy. Side or stern paddlers could have been the answer, but various
experiments never really came to anything.
It was only nearly at the end of the nineteenth century that railway
competition got so intense that the biggest carriers 'Fellows Morton and
Clayton' decided to build a fleet of steamers, to be known as the FMC
steamers. They built a fleet of thirty two 72 footers based on their
established horse drawn boats.(The butty) The modification was at the
stern, where instead of the pointed back-end wich accomodated a big
rudder, the steamer had a rounded counter stern which sat over the top
of the pointed back-end which now accomodated the stern gear and prop.
The reason for the counter stern above the prop was to provide a
cavitation plate and a support for the new rudder. From this design came
the traditional motor (narrowboat) which we know today. The only
noticable difference between the steamer and motor hull shape was that
the steamer had slightly canted up counter to accomodate the diameter of
that big slow revving prop.
There were various experiments with engines and boilers but once they
got through their teething problems most of the FMC steamers had a
horizontal coke fired, fire tubed boiler with a Haines tandem compound
engine. The reason for the tandem compound seems to have been that that
compounds were more economical to run than simples and as the tandem was
vertical instead of side by side it took up only half the area, which
was critical as it represented cargo space. The box on top of the
steamer engine room roof was to accomodate the extra height of the
vertical engine with one cylinder mounted on top of the other sharing a
single piston rod. It is said that although these engines were immensly
powerful they had a bad habit of stopping on dead centre when going from
ahead to astern.
The FMC steamers, with grand names like Sultan, King,
Queen,Viceroy,Monarch,President etc became the tea clippers of the canal
system running fly from London to the Midlands carrying perishables and
premium cargoes. They say the boilers never went out and the all mail
crews worked continual day and night shifts. They represented the most
significant change in the history of the canals. The change from horse
to mechanical power, but their magnificent reign was short lived. They
required a big crew and the engine boiler plus and fuel took up a lot of
cargo space.
When the semi diesel engine became available in the mid twenties the
steamers engines and boilers were taken out and scrapped and replaced
with the Bolinder which took up little space and could be operated by a
man and wife. It is interesting that as the steamers were male only
crew there was little evidence of the polished brasses and roses and
castles as seen on the boats operated by families. For instance,
steamers never had the brass bands round the back cabin chimney. They
were just black and austere like the the funnel.
There are probably about nine or ten ex FMC steamers left, two back in
steam, President and Monarch. Unfortunately neither vessel has the
original steam plant, but most importantly they are back in steam and I
think do a good job in representing that short but very significant era
of our canals history. The Black Country Museum, the owners of
President are hoping to re engine her with a replica of the original
Haines tandem compound which would be a worthy and very interesting
project.
Roger Murray, steamer 'Monarch'
Martin Ludgate
In message <358123...@dial.pipex.com>, Roger Murray
<kb...@dial.pipex.com> writes
....a very interesting piece about the history of steam power on
canals.
I've always found it interesting how the 'pre-mechanical', steam,
internal combustion and electric eras have been so different for
different transport systems: ships, boats, trains, trams and road
vehicles. Mostly it seems to be down to the characteristics of the
power produced, and whether it is suited to the type of traction
required. For example, the ability of a steam engine to give
maximum traction at zero rpm is excellent for starting a freight
train, but no use for pushing a boat along a shallow canal, due to
the size of prop required. The opposite seems to be the case for
a diesel engine: in a boat you can just couple it to the prop (with
maybe a pair of reduction gears), whereas for a train you need a
complicated transmission system, usually either electric or
hydraulic. Hence the change from steam to diesel happened
30-40 years earlier on narrow boats than on trains.
By the way, as well as pioneering steam on narrow canals, FMC
were also experimenting with electric boats drawing current from
overhead wires.
--
Martin Ludgate
David Long
In message <faurecm-1106...@blv-lx104-ip47.nwnexus.net>, C.
Marin Faure <fau...@halcyon.com> writes
> But can anyone tell me how widely
>used steam was as a power source on the working boats?
The best book I know on this is CP Weaver & CR Weaver's "Steam on
Canals" (David & Charles - no date, but around 1985 - ISBN
0-7153-8218-7). Loads of pictures of all sorts of steam-powered craft.
In the intro. they say "On the narrow canals...the steamboat was a
rarity". They didn't lend themselves to family operation (they needed to
be kept going 24 hrs a day as far as possible, and required an engineer
in addition to the steerers).
However, they were a more economic proposition on the wide canals - and
steam was used for tugs, maintenance craft and inspection launches.
There are loads of pictures - and I think the book is still on the
shelves.
--
David Long
Mike Clarke
>By the way, as well as pioneering steam on narrow canals, FMC
>were also experimenting with electric boats drawing current from
>overhead wires.
There were a surprising number of experiments with electric traction around
the turn of the century. Obviously there was one on the L&L, though I've
come across a number of others in Britain. The Technical Museum in Berlin
has one of the tractors used on the Teltow Canal on display, and I've also
seen some battery powered railway tugs which used to be used in France. The
development of towage systems is one of the least known, but most
interesting aspects of canal history. I really must get down to writing
.........
na zdrowie
Mike Clarke, 41 Fountain St, Accrington, UK, BB5 0QR
tel & fax: +44 (0)1254-395848
http://www.zen.co.uk/home/page/mike.clarke/home.htm
Mike Clarke
>> But I'm > curious how many working boats used steam? Not having ever
>>seen any of
>> the current steam-powered narrowboats, I do not know how much space the
>> boiler, engine,and coal supply take up. Perhaps they need no more space
>> used steam was as a power source on the working boats?
>>
>reason you suggest : the boiler etc cut down the cargo capacity by (I
>believe) about 30%. The best-known and biggest fleet of steamers was
>that of FMC (of which both PRESIDENT and MONARCH are examples). They
>made steam pay by using it on fly runs between London and various
>Midlands destinations with high-value or perishable cargoes for which
>they could charge a premium rate. As soon a semi-diesel engines became
>available, they switched to them. Hence both PRESIDENT and MONARCH have
>been re-converted to steam. There are quite a few ex-FMC steamers
>around, some still with the Bolinders that were put in them in the
>1920s.
There were forty two steam barges operated by the Leeds & Liverpool, and a
further seven tugs. The first semi diesel was tried circa 1906, but was not
successful, and they were not widely introduced until the 1920s. The steam
engines used were built by William Wilkinson from Wigan who was better
known for his design for steam tram engines.
David Long
In message <l03102802b1a72f7e33c1@[194.72.186.64]>, Mike Clarke
<mike....@zen.co.uk> writes
>>By the way, as well as pioneering steam on narrow canals, FMC
>>were also experimenting with electric boats drawing current from
>>overhead wires.
>
>There were a surprising number of experiments with electric traction around
>the turn of the century.
> The Technical Museum in Berlin
>has one of the tractors used on the Teltow Canal on display, and I've also
>seen some battery powered railway tugs which used to be used in France.
The majority of French towage systems used overhead powered locos -
there are miles of lines, sheds, transformer stations, and bits of the
overhead system still to be seen, as well as locos (they've not long
restored two around Reims on the Aisne-Marne Canal). They were in use
until the sixties in some tunnels - and there are still some electric-
traction tugs in existence, as I've mentioned here before.
>The
>development of towage systems is one of the least known, but most
>interesting aspects of canal history. I really must get down to writing
>.........
Well, get on with it then.
--
David Long
Dr Sean Neill
> vehicles. Mostly it seems to be down to the characteristics of the
> power produced, and whether it is suited to the type of traction
> required. For example, the ability of a steam engine to give
> maximum traction at zero rpm is excellent for starting a freight
> train, but no use for pushing a boat along a shallow canal, due to
> the size of prop required. The opposite seems to be the case for
> a diesel engine: in a boat you can just couple it to the prop (with
> maybe a pair of reduction gears), whereas for a train you need a
> complicated transmission system, usually either electric or
> hydraulic. Hence the change from steam to diesel happened
> 30-40 years earlier on narrow boats than on trains.
> Martin Ludgate
>
I'm sure this is right - IMHO the main value of steam on the canals
was for dredging, where its static pull is just what is required.
Except for the British, most shipowners has converted to diesel by
WWII - the American had to rediscover steam for the Liberty ships.
Sean
Dr Sean Neill
> horizontal coke fired, fire tubed boiler with a Haines tandem compound
> engine. The reason for the tandem compound seems to have been that that
> compounds were more economical to run than simples and as the tandem was
> vertical instead of side by side it took up only half the area, which
> Roger Murray, steamer 'Monarch'
>
I was discussing this this morning with Philip Martino. An odd thing
about this engine is that it rotates in the opposite direction to
normal boat/ship practice. My guess is that it was a Bitza made by
modifying a standard industrial engine from a firm with whom FMC
already had trading links - as Roger says, it is difficult to handle.
The 'proper' approach used eg. by Salters' on the Thames, is to get
an orthodox compund/triple from an experienced maker such as Sissons.
For some reason, the Americans were much keener on tandem compounds -
anyone know why?
Sean
Dr Sean Neill
> There were forty two steam barges operated by the Leeds & Liverpool, and a
> further seven tugs. The first semi diesel was tried circa 1906, but was not
> Mike Clarke, 41 Fountain St, Accrington, UK, BB5 0QR
My guess is that the total on 'narrow' canals (ie excluding the
Weaver etc was ~ 100
~ 50 on the L&L
~30 carrying nbs (FMC built a total of 30 but not all these were
operational at one time - but also Nelson's of Stockton etc.)
~ 20 tugs (tunnels and BCN/London areas)
Sean
Bruce Peckett
On 13 Jun 1998 16:58:23 -0000, ed...@snow.csv.warwick.ac.uk (Dr Sean
Neill) wrote:
>I was discussing this this morning with Philip Martino. An odd thing
>about this engine is that it rotates in the opposite direction to
>normal boat/ship practice. My guess is that it was a Bitza made by
>modifying a standard industrial engine from a firm with whom FMC
>already had trading links - as Roger says, it is difficult to handle.
>
Correct me if I'm wrong but .......
IIRC, the most common engine in FMC steamers was the Haines (or was it
Haynes?) type which was redesigned from an industrial engine by H.R.
deSalis especially for the job and manufactured by FMC themselves
The reversing problem wasn't a problem - they rarely if ever used
reverse! Joshers were made for going forwards when all's said and done
and, what's more, the steamer crews would have worked their way up on
the horse boats where they would have become well acquainted with
handling boats with no brakes.
I suspect that had the potential for stopping on BDC been a problem,
FMC would have engineered an answer (they never worried about the
potential for a Bolinder to go out when reversing either). I reckon
that the answer probably lay in the skill of the driver, allowing the
engine to stop on BDC was probably akin to letting your fire get a
hole in it or lifting the safety and other similar steaming sins!
--
Regards
Bruce Peckett
Half Cut - Contemporary folk music & fun from the canals of England.
Reply to: bru...@halfcut.demon.co.uk Website: http://www.halfcut.demon.co.uk
Roger Murray
Bruce Peckett wrote:
>
> On 13 Jun 1998 16:58:23 -0000, ed...@snow.csv.warwick.ac.uk (Dr Sean
> Neill) wrote:
>
> >I was discussing this this morning with Philip Martino. An odd thing
> >about this engine is that it rotates in the opposite direction to
> >normal boat/ship practice. My guess is that it was a Bitza made by
> >modifying a standard industrial engine from a firm with whom FMC
> >already had trading links - as Roger says, it is difficult to handle.
> >
> Correct me if I'm wrong but .......
>
> IIRC, the most common engine in FMC steamers was the Haines (or was it
> Haynes?) type which was redesigned from an industrial engine by H.R.
> deSalis especially for the job and manufactured by FMC themselves
>
> The reversing problem wasn't a problem - they rarely if ever used
> reverse! Joshers were made for going forwards when all's said and done
> and, what's more, the steamer crews would have worked their way up on
> the horse boats where they would have become well acquainted with
> handling boats with no brakes.
I think you are right Bruce insofar as the Haines engine reversing
problem wasn't actually a problem, as the steamer crews would have been
so adept at handling the steamers that they would have rarely had to
ring astern. Neverthess, there must have always been at the back of
the steerers mind the thought that engine might not go astern if he
needed it in an emergency.
Single cylinder engines, single crank compounds and tandem compounds all
had a tendancy to stall when the high pressure cylinder hit TDC or BDC
when going from ahead to reverse.
The problem with the steamers was that the engine had to be low down in
the hull, (in line with the prop shaft) therefore considerably
resricting the size of flywheel. As we are all surmising what actually
happend, my guess would be, as the engine didn't have a big eneough
flywheel and was coupled direct to a big prop (which would damp it down)
it would have been difficult for the engineer to catch the engines
rocking momentum from ahead to reverse at the right moment with the
reversing lever, so it would have generally ended up with a barring over
job.
From time to time I used to drive an old Burrell single crank compound
traction engine. You virtually had to rock the complete engine back and
forth over TDC or BDC with the reversing lever to get her into reverse.
Without the massive flywheel to give momentum it would have been get
chocks under the wheels, put the engine into neutral and hand the
flywheel over. So I can imagine the problems they had with those
Haines. But then again this is only conjecture! The Haines engine, I
seem to recollect, also had a problem with breaking crankshafts.
I have an old engineers drawing of a double crank compound (side by
side) steam engine with bores and stroke of 5x10x10, built by Alfred M
Beasley and sons, Engineers, Uxbridge. for the G.J.C.CO. This I would
have thought would have been a far better engine for the steamers but of
course it took up slightly more precious cargo space. Sean knows the
drawing I am refering to, which reminds me that I must return it to
Terry Yates.
Roger Murray, steamer "Monarch'
David Kitching
In article <faurecm-1106...@blv-lx104-ip47.nwnexus.net>,
C. Marin Faure <URL:mailto:fau...@halcyon.com> wrote:
[snip]
> . But can anyone tell me how widely
> used steam was as a power source on the working boats?
For an insight into steam powered boats on the Macclesfield Canal in the
1830's have a look at my webpage on the subject at
http://www.u-net.com/~brocross/canal/steam.htm
Cheers,
--
)| David Kitching _____|______|_ ____
___|_______________________________[]|_|88|__TCO__|____/
\---- http://www.u-net.com/~brocross/home.htm ----)