Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't think that I have added this S&P crane from Chatham Historic Dockyard previously

Stothert & Pitt crane - Chatham Historic Dockyard - 25 8 2006.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jib looks shorter on that one than the M Shed cranes

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Corbs said:

The jib looks shorter on that one than the M Shed cranes

Thanks Phil. I'd forgotten about that one too but I've  just found my photos of crane no 4412  and the other much taller one on the other side of the same dock and they're my clearest images of S&P LL cranes.

4412 does have a fairly short jib and the whole crane is quite squat.

 

Chatham040096.JPG.69645380232883b1e9da5f912eaabfbc.JPG

Chatham040095.JPG.a0b7901d4269eb6687024a89e83d116e.JPG

Chatham040102.JPG.6f5f7b6cc73a5690b1bb9bb881a1dfc0.JPG

 

Chatham040100.JPG.f1c63a56469c968b66a026a77d36d8c1.JPG

 

 Despite its short stature that the machine house is of the larger variety but this crane could handle loads of 10 tons (though not over its whole range) which is more than the typical 3-5 ton level luffing cranes used for general cargo handling. The jib length would relate to the luffing needed to reach the far side of the hold or whatever in the ship is being lifted, in a dry dock probably machinery and other parts of the ship rather than stores and in this case the dry dock is realtively narrow. I think not having to reach so far was also the reason why the cranes in ferry ports were generally smaller than those in Docks like Southampton or London.

However, the other crane in that part of Chatham dockyard, no 640 (?) which I think is SWL 9 tons is much taller.

 

Chatham040103.JPG.ddd2e39838749691a62d49818215c72e.JPGChatham040104.JPG.59fd48546ef240a696d9bcef0526425e.JPGChatham040105.JPG.2c43aa260fdaaad98214cae7980c9f6d.JPGChatham040107.JPG.473f45b8b3ee44bd90fcbe79af92208a.JPG

I think in this case the height was to handle masts, radar installations and so forth so the base is very tall but so is the jib itself. I also have no idea what the intermediate level "garden shed" on this crane was for, possibly just to store parts.

What is alo interesting about this and other images is how little standardisation there seems to have been in Stothert and Pitt's designs, The shape of the machine house/cab in particular do seem to have varied a great deal.

 

 

Edited by Pacific231G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Thanks Phil. I'd forgotten about that one too.

I'm pretty sure that It does have a fairly short jib but I'll try to dig our my own photos of it. Despite that the machine house is of the larger variety which suggests that it was handling fairly heavy loads. The jib length would relate to the luffing needed to reach the far side of the hold or whatever in the ships being dealt with.  Chatham was a naval dockyard so would presumably be dealing with rather narrower vessels than most deep sea cargo ships. I'm pretty sure in any case that the dock where that crane is mounted is a fairly narrow one. I think that was also the reason why the cranes in ferry ports were generally smaller than those in Docks like Southampton or London.

I think that its current location is not one that it would have been used in. If you look at Google maps it is opposite the inshore end of a dock with the railway running between it and the dock. I take your point about different sized jibs for different lifting tasks. Many of the photos of Newhaven show the small rail mounted types, as were used at Highbridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

Thanks Phil. I'd forgotten about that one too.

I'm pretty sure that It does have a fairly short jib but I'll try to dig our my own photos of it. Despite that the machine house is of the larger variety which suggests that it was handling fairly heavy loads. The jib length would relate to the luffing needed to reach the far side of the hold or whatever in the ships being dealt with.  Chatham was a naval dockyard so would presumably be dealing with rather narrower vessels than most deep sea cargo ships. I'm pretty sure in any case that the dock where that crane is mounted is a fairly narrow one. I think that was also the reason why the cranes in ferry ports were generally smaller than those in Docks like Southampton or London.

I think that its current location is not one that it would have been used in. If you look at Google maps it is opposite the inshore end of a dock with the railway running between it and the dock. I take your point about different sized jibs for different lifting tasks. Many of the photos of Newhaven show the small rail mounted types, as were used at Highbridge.

The trio of cranes at the entrance to the West India Docks, which are in the distance in this shot taken when the Swedish ship Gotheborg was visiting still seem to be there, judging by the current 3D view from the Google spy satellite.

Gotheborg WI Docks & Millenium Dome London 31 5 2007.jpg

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

That's sad. Do you know when? The video was uploaded to YouTube in 2008 but I took this picture in September 2015 after taking some friends to start their cruise on the Azure and finding the Waverley on the next berth

 

I wasn't focussing on the cranes but there were four or five of them  ranged along Western Docks' long quay.

 

Further to the question of the "traditional" cranes in Southampton Western Docks - a quick look at Google Earth's historic layers function shows they actually went a year later than I'd thought - late 2016 / early 2017.  This capture of the imagery dated 12/8/16 shows the remaining older cranes up around 105/104 berths.  I stopped working trains into the docks in August 2017 after 25 years of doing so, and I'm sure they'd gone by then as I was very conscious - with the terminal redevelopments - of how much of the old infrastructure had vanished in a relatively short time.  If only I'd taken more photos....

 

 

West docks cranes 12.8.16.JPG

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

I think that its current location is not one that it would have been used in. If you look at Google maps it is opposite the inshore end of a dock with the railway running between it and the dock. I take your point about different sized jibs for different lifting tasks. Many of the photos of Newhaven show the small rail mounted types, as were used at Highbridge.

Hi Phil

Looking at the location again and my other photos from it. the shorter crane no. 4412 is definitely still on its crane rails, though almost touching the inland end stops, and they run the full length of the half flooded drydock housing HMS Cavalier. They're a bit different from the crane rails usually found in commercial docks as they're raised maybe a foot above ground level with one rail right on the edge of the dock, it's a a bit hidden by the safety fence ,  and the other creating a low barrier between the working area and the side of the dock.

I've enhanced crops from my own photos to show the rails more clearly.

1582218970_cranetrackscavalierdrydock1.jpg.8034e469ffb49d2187d56444925ca28f.jpg

 

1238896830_cranetrackscavalierdrydock2.jpg.ebf42083f9e8b1435ae4f81ace844950.jpg

 

554645034_cranetrackscavalierdrydock3.jpg.8f09bf1cb6b2e9e2fbfa4331df73bc38.jpg

 

Also, unlike most cargo handling docks, there doesn't seem to have been a railway line running between the two crane rails and there is  "pit" between the rails. I think the electrical supply cable lay in a shallow trough just inside the right hand rail (as seen in these images) as it was wound and unwound from the cable drum (clearly visible in the first two images I posted yesterday. I can't tell from my photos whether the cable has been removed or the drum is empty because the cable is fed from the gate end of dock. 

The other taller crane is a bit less certain. It's at the gate end of the drydock and there don't appear to be any rails running along that side of the dock but, looking at Google Earth, you can see a linear mark aligned with the leg of the crane, indicating from where rail may have been removed. These cranes are such large structures that dismantling them, moving them to another location and re-erecitng them, though possible, would be a fairly major undertaking; so when they have been preserved, like those in front of Bristol's M shed,  it tends to be in situ. 

 

Needless to say, I'm now wishing I'd taken more photos of these cranes and their surroundings when I was at the dockyard for the Chatham show in 2004. However, that day I also had a good chat with Cyril Freezer over a lunchtime sandwich. That was the last time I met him and might well not have done had I spent any more  more time photographing Stothert & Pitt cranes.

 

 

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/10/2019 at 10:05, phil_sutters said:

By pure coincidence, I have just bought the Oakwood Press book by S.Jordan 'Ferry Services of the LB&SCR'. There are two photos of ships resting on the Newhaven Harbour gridiron. In this case the gridiron was installed to allow minor repairs to be done locally, with out the need for a dry dock. The railway company had its own marine engineering workshop there, to service its fleet of cross channel ferries, with a massive set of sheer-legs to lift ships' boilers out for maintenance.  The workshop was converted in 2014/5 into a University Technical College for 14 - 18 year-olds studying science, maths and engineering. Unfortunately it hasn't attracted enough students and has been wound down. There has been talk of converting it into a FE college for the same range of subjects.

You can see my photos of the work to convert the workshops at http://www.ipernity.com/doc/philsutters/album/723445 . They include photos of the original railway buildings demolished or converted.

 

Any idea what sort of boilers were fitted to the ferries?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/10/2019 at 19:47, Pacific231G said:

Thanks Phil. I'd forgotten about that one too but I've  just found my photos of crane no 4412  and the other much taller one on the other side of the same dock and they're my clearest images of S&P LL cranes.

4412 does have a fairly short jib and the whole crane is quite squat.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/Chatham040096.JPG.69645380232883b1e9da5f912eaabfbc.JPG

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/Chatham040095.JPG.a0b7901d4269eb6687024a89e83d116e.JPG

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/Chatham040102.JPG.6f5f7b6cc73a5690b1bb9bb881a1dfc0.JPG

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/Chatham040100.JPG.f1c63a56469c968b66a026a77d36d8c1.JPG

 

 Despite its short stature that the machine house is of the larger variety but this crane could handle loads of 10 tons (though not over its whole range) which is more than the typical 3-5 ton level luffing cranes used for general cargo handling. The jib length would relate to the luffing needed to reach the far side of the hold or whatever in the ship is being lifted, in a dry dock probably machinery and other parts of the ship rather than stores and in this case the dry dock is realtively narrow. I think not having to reach so far was also the reason why the cranes in ferry ports were generally smaller than those in Docks like Southampton or London.

However, the other crane in that part of Chatham dockyard, no 640 (?) which I think is SWL 9 tons is much taller.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/Chatham040103.JPG.ddd2e39838749691a62d49818215c72e.JPGhttps://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/Chatham040104.JPG.59fd48546ef240a696d9bcef0526425e.JPGhttps://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/Chatham040105.JPG.2c43aa260fdaaad98214cae7980c9f6d.JPGhttps://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/Chatham040107.JPG.473f45b8b3ee44bd90fcbe79af92208a.JPG

I think in this case the height was to handle masts, radar installations and so forth so the base is very tall but so is the jib itself. I also have no idea what the intermediate level "garden shed" on this crane was for, possibly just to store parts.

What is alo interesting about this and other images is how little standardisation there seems to have been in Stothert and Pitt's designs, The shape of the machine house/cab in particular do seem to have varied a great deal.

 

 

 

If I remember correctly the "garden shed" holds electrical gear to convert voltages etc, as when they were built  the supply voltages were different to the current supplies. In Devonport Boilershop we had some obsolete machinery that was still used and that had some big electric motors and dynamos to provide juice for them, a right pig to get going, fortunately not needed very often.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

 

Any idea what sort of boilers were fitted to the ferries?

 

 

It will take me a time to go through 'The Ferry Services of the LBSCR' to find the details of the dozens of ships used on their services. A copy of the book is currently available from World of Books at https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/books/s-jordan/ferry-services-of-the-london-brighton-and-south-coast-railway/GOR009840992   for £3.99 including p&p. They post out very promptly. If you don't want to go that route, I will gather up the information when I have a moment or two....

Best wishes

 

Phile

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

It will take me a time to go through 'The Ferry Services of the LBSCR' to find the details of the dozens of ships used on their services. A copy of the book is currently available from World of Books at https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/books/s-jordan/ferry-services-of-the-london-brighton-and-south-coast-railway/GOR009840992   for £3.99 including p&p. They post out very promptly. If you don't want to go that route, I will gather up the information when I have a moment or two....

Best wishes

 

Phile

 

 

It's only professional interest, being a boilermaker by trade and never seen boilers removed from the ship for re-tubing or repairs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

 

 

It's only professional interest, being a boilermaker by trade and never seen boilers removed from the ship for re-tubing or repairs.

 

 

There is a photo in the Maritime Activities of the Somerset & Dorset Railway by Chris Handley, in which a ships boiler has been lifted out by a railway breakdown crane and placed on a wagon for transfer to Highbridge loco works for repair. It would appear to have been an out of gauge load, but with only a short way to go and just a few overbridges - two, foot, one at the A38 and one, foot and one road, at Highbridge station, it was presumably fairly straight-forward as Chris says it was the way the company maintained its own vessels.

With a much bigger fleet and dockside facilities - the marine engineering workshops and a huge set of sheerlegs - the LBSCR at Newhaven must have been well versed in doing this type of work.

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

There is a photo in the Maritime Activities of the Somerset & Dorset Railway by Chris Handley, in which a ships boiler has been lifted out by a railway breakdown crane and placed on a wagon for transfer to Highbridge loco works for repair. It would appear to have been an out of gauge load, but with only a short way to go and just a few overbridges - two, foot, one at the A38 and one, foot and one road, at Highbridge station, it was presumably fairly straight-forward as Chris says it was the way the company maintained its own vessels.

With a much bigger fleet and dockside facilities - the marine engineering workshops and a huge set of sheerlegs - the LBSCR at Newhaven must have been well versed in doing this type of work.

 

 

 

 

Must be some fairly large holes to allow for boiler removal, or the boilers are fairly small to allow for egress from the boiler room.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the S&D cargo ships it looks as though the bridge structure and funnel were lifted off. The Julia, whose boiler is the one shown out on a railway wagon, had a boiler with a 10'6" diameter and 9'9" mean length. These dimensions are on the machinery arrangement drawing in Maritime Activities of the S&DR.

Julia and Radstock were just under 200 tonnes gross, less than a third of the tonnage of the LBSCR passenger ferries of the same inter-war era.

On the ferries the areas under the funnels would be where the boilers were, I guess, So maybe they were lifted off along with part of the superstructure beneath. I have not seen any plans so this is pure speculation.

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

On the S&D cargo ships it looks as though the bridge structure and funnel were lifted off. The Julia, whose boiler is the one shown out on a railway wagon, had a boiler with a 10'6" diameter and 9'9" mean length. These dimensions are on the machinery arrangement drawing in Maritime Activities of the S&DR.

Julia and Radstock were just under 200 tonnes gross, less than a third of the tonnage of the LBSCR passenger ferries of the same inter-war era.

On the ferries the areas under the funnels would be where the boilers were, I guess, So maybe they were lifted off along with part of the superstructure beneath. I have not seen any plans so this is pure speculation.

Looking at various plans in Waine's Steam Coasters and his description of the their building, the machinery and boiler(s) would be installed, the engine casing closed up and the structure above the boiler, usually the galley, and funnel fitted. For complete reboilering, the yard probably would have had to remove part of the superstructure though the casing must have been large enough for the largest . The rest of the machinery including the individual parts of the engines could be lifted in and out through the engine room skylight though for larger components I suspect that the engine room skylight would have had to be lifted off completely. 

I understand that the P.S. Waverly uses modern industrial steam generators but AFAIK the S.S. Shieldhall is still fitted with its original Scotch boilers so the Trust's engineers could probably answer that question. 

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/10/2019 at 23:31, Siberian Snooper said:

 

If I remember correctly the "garden shed" holds electrical gear to convert voltages etc, as when they were built  the supply voltages were different to the current supplies. In Devonport Boilershop we had some obsolete machinery that was still used and that had some big electric motors and dynamos to provide juice for them, a right pig to get going, fortunately not needed very often.

 

 

Hi Phil

I've just got a copy of Stothert & Pitt Cranemakers to the World and the taller crane at Chatham is identical in every respect to a photo in the book of one of the 360 dockside cranes that the company built for the Ministry of Supply in eighteen months from 1944 at the rate of up to ten a week. According to the book, they were designed to be erected quckly, possibly under enemy fire, from interchangeable units, sometimes assembled on site in as little as twenty seven working hours, and were designed to include a diesel generator to power them independently of local electrical supplies  in damaged or temporary military ports. 

 

The book isn't good on technical details- it talks for example about the importance of Claude Toplis' invention of level luffing but never explains it.  Essentially it's a biography of the company, but I take from their description that these particular cranes were prefabricated.  I assume that the "garden shed", that doesn't appear in any of the other cargo cranes illustrated, was to accomodate the generator but when installed in a permanent location would continue to house the electrical gear even if the generator had been removed or quite possibly never installed , when a shore supply ofelectrical power was reliably available.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.