Blacker Lane D.P.

[Ruston]

Today I will continue work on the dozer. The instructions are almost non-existent and consist of a list of parts and a series of 3D renders, so although I quickly realised the yoke was missing it wasn't until yesterday that I discovered that other parts were either missing of wrong. Parts that should go with the hydraulic rams and the arms for the blade aren't there and will have to be made from scratch. I've given up hope of getting a reply from Milicast.

 

Tomorrow I will begin to build the last sizeable item for the layout, which will be one of Hargreaves' barges that carried coal down the Calder & Hebble Navigation to Ravensthorpe power station, in the 1970s.

 

This Flickr photo, taken in July 1973, shows a barge at the Figure Of Three locks, returning to British Oak. Healey Mills yard on the left and the flyover bridge for the up lines can be seen.

Thanks to @03060 I have a copy of Paul Lunn's article in Scale Model Trains, where he describes them as West Country barges and gives dimensions of 57ft. 6in length and 14ft. beam, so that gives me something to work from. The wheelhouses were collapsible as shown by the photo above. I don't know if that was to fit under some low bridges when empty or for the crew to keep cool in hot weather.

 

[Ruston]

Trinity fan Eddie got the job. Here is at work in charge of a D7 on the tip and thinking about his team hammering Cas at the next home game.

 

 

 

[mac1960]

On 26/01/2024 at 14:05, Victor Vectis said:

 

Have you shrunk since?

😀

vv 

Actually yes, as I am back to the weight I was at Uni which was just under 13 stone and I have dropped 6 stone since a change in diet and limited  Lager. The Larger was due to typing on I Phone alas, and that's my excuse anyway 🫣  

Edited January 27 by mac1960

[figworthy]

7 hours ago, Ruston said:

Thanks to @03060 I have a copy of Paul Lunn's article in Scale Model Trains, where he describes them as West Country barges and gives dimensions of 57ft. 6in length and 14ft. beam, so that gives me something to work from. The wheelhouses were collapsible as shown by the photo above. I don't know if that was to fit under some low bridges when empty or for the crew to keep cool in hot weather.

 

 

 

Ooh, nice pictures.  Takes me back to when I were a lad.

 

To the bargemen working the waterways connected to the Humber, the Calder valley was known as the West Country, hence the barges that were built for that traffic were know as West Countries.

 

The upper part of the wheel house folded down principally to allow it to get under low bridges (fresh air in the summer was a bonus, not so much in the winter).  If you tried to get up the arm to Saville Town Basin  (Dewsbury), you would need to dismantle the entire wheel house and lay the wheel on the deck.

 

Adrian

Edited January 27 by figworthy

[Ruston]

I've made a start with some card. It's going to be a little under length owing to the space available.

 

I forgot this.

The car hoarder's collection now includes an old Fordson tractor. I was buying the lorry and dozer driver figures on Scale 3D's website when I saw the tractor and for just £2.49 I couldn't resist. It's not a kit, it's a single piece print. All I've done is to paint and weather it. I'm still not convinced of 3D printing for model locos, but this is the sort of thing where 3D printing comes into its own.

[doilum]

On 27/01/2024 at 12:45, Ruston said:

Today I will continue work on the dozer. The instructions are almost non-existent and consist of a list of parts and a series of 3D renders, so although I quickly realised the yoke was missing it wasn't until yesterday that I discovered that other parts were either missing of wrong. Parts that should go with the hydraulic rams and the arms for the blade aren't there and will have to be made from scratch. I've given up hope of getting a reply from Milicast.

 

Tomorrow I will begin to build the last sizeable item for the layout, which will be one of Hargreaves' barges that carried coal down the Calder & Hebble Navigation to Ravensthorpe power station, in the 1970s.

 

This Flickr photo, taken in July 1973, shows a barge at the Figure Of Three locks, returning to British Oak. Healey Mills yard on the left and the flyover bridge for the up lines can be seen.

Thanks to @03060 I have a copy of Paul Lunn's article in Scale Model Trains, where he describes them as West Country barges and gives dimensions of 57ft. 6in length and 14ft. beam, so that gives me something to work from. The wheelhouses were collapsible as shown by the photo above. I don't know if that was to fit under some low bridges when empty or for the crew to keep cool in hot weather.

 

Dimensions sound about right. I built one for my never named first 7mm layout in the early 80s.

[Ruston]

The good news is that I went wrong somewhere in converting 57ft. 6 ins. to millimetres. I thought that I had to make the barge shorter than it ought to be but my unnecessary shortening has luckily ended up being spot on and it is a scale 57ft. 6in. after all.

 

The bad news is that I built the tipper house and chute without having a barge to use for heights and clearances, so the chute has ended up being far too low and not long enough. It's going to require modification but as the working tipper in it is now redundant I am considering ripping the entire thing out and going back to the original plan of a staithe based on the 1969 Qualter Hall-built one that was at British Oak, and using 21-ton hoppers with it. I would keep the 13-ton minerals but instead of using them on the canal run I would use a bit of Modeller's Licence to run them to the fiddle yard, as if there was an off-scene Landsales yard somewhere.

 

I'm not sure what to do at the moment.

 

 

The basic card shell is being covered with Plastikard.

[Redkiterail]

could it not be a engineering barge with workers working on the chute

[Dunalastair]

You will not want to rework the model but the freeboard might be lower for a full barge. However, the reach of the chute looks more of an issue - if the load was not more central you might be concerned that the barge could capsize during loading.

[Ruston]

43 minutes ago, Dunalastair said:

You will not want to rework the model but the freeboard might be lower for a full barge. However, the reach of the chute looks more of an issue - if the load was not more central you might be concerned that the barge could capsize during loading.

I was going from the empty ones in the photos. It doesn't have to be a full one anyway.  It could have only just begun loading. I can always make another, loaded, one and swap them about for a bit of variety as they need not be fixed in place now. 

 

But, yes  the chute is a problem. 

 

I would have thought they would have to trim the load even with the chute in the correct place as dumping 20 tons of coal in one go isn't very precise. 

[doilum]

1 hour ago, Ruston said:

I was going from the empty ones in the photos. It doesn't have to be a full one anyway.  It could have only just begun loading. I can always make another, loaded, one and swap them about for a bit of variety as they need not be fixed in place now. 

 

But, yes  the chute is a problem. 

 

I would have thought they would have to trim the load even with the chute in the correct place as dumping 20 tons of coal in one go isn't very precise. 

Somewhere I have a photo I took of barges being loaded at Allerton Bywater with the stern almost awash and the bow out of the water in a “Titanic” pose. I guess the second wagon load levelled things out.

[figworthy]

1 hour ago, Ruston said:

I was going from the empty ones in the photos. It doesn't have to be a full one anyway.  It could have only just begun loading. I can always make another, loaded, one and swap them about for a bit of variety as they need not be fixed in place now. 

 

But, yes  the chute is a problem. 

 

I would have thought they would have to trim the load even with the chute in the correct place as dumping 20 tons of coal in one go isn't very precise. 

 

Given that most of the craft loading at the new staithe were the same size, it would be reasonable to assume that the chute was set at the middle of the hold.

 

On the real thing, the deck was often slightly curved, with the middle being lower than the ends.  Assuming that there was enough depth in the canal, the deck at its lowest point would be just (inch or two) above the water level.

 

Fully loaded, they would carry 75 tons, which doesn't quite work with 20 ton  wagon loads.

 

Adrian

[Ruston]

3 minutes ago, doilum said:

Somewhere I have a photo I took of barges being loaded at Allerton Bywater with the stern almost awash and the bow out of the water in a “Titanic” pose. I guess the second wagon load levelled things out.

Is it the one in one of Ron Rockett's books?

[doilum]

2 minutes ago, figworthy said:

 

Given that most of the craft loading at the new staithe were the same size, it would be reasonable to assume that the chute was set at the middle of the hold.

 

On the real thing, the deck was often slightly curved, with the middle being lower than the ends.  Assuming that there was enough depth in the canal, the deck at its lowest point would be just (inch or two) above the water level.

 

Fully loaded, they would carry 75 tons, which doesn't quite work with 20 ton  wagon loads.

 

Adrian

At most locations in this area the seven plank end door shipping wagon was more commonly used.

[doilum]

6 minutes ago, Ruston said:

Is it the one in one of Ron Rockett's books?

I think it is. I do have a set of grainy slides taken with dads instamatic illustrating the transport of coal to Ferrybridge. Support materials  for my first teaching practice in 1974.

Also some of the 57 footers moored at Castleford circa 1982 this time taken on my brand new OM 10.

Edited January 29 by doilum

[Ruston]

22 minutes ago, figworthy said:

 

Given that most of the craft loading at the new staithe were the same size, it would be reasonable to assume that the chute was set at the middle of the hold.

 

On the real thing, the deck was often slightly curved, with the middle being lower than the ends.  Assuming that there was enough depth in the canal, the deck at its lowest point would be just (inch or two) above the water level.

 

Fully loaded, they would carry 75 tons, which doesn't quite work with 20 ton  wagon loads.

 

Adrian

I wonder how they worked out the loading? The wagons were 20 or 21-ton capacity. I presume there was some control over the unloading of the ex-Liverpool Corporation hoppers, with the wheel to open the doors but I don't think there was any control over the types with levers. Once opened it would dump the lot. There doesn't look to have been a storage hopper built into the staithe, from where the flow into the barge could be controlled.

 

 

Edited January 29 by Ruston

[cctransuk]

4 minutes ago, Ruston said:

I wonder how they worked out the loading? The wagons were 20 or 21-ton capacity. I presume there was some control over the unloading of the ex-Liverpool Corporation hoppers, with the wheel to open the doors but I don't think there was any control over the types with levers. Once opened it would dump the lot. There doesn't look to have been a storage hopper built into the staithe, from where the flow into the barge could be controlled.

 

 

Am I correct in thinking that wagons would carry a load ticket, rather than rely on the nominal painted load?

 

If so, some quick calculations by the shunter, and any necessary shunting, would allow a short rake to be formed which came close to the permitted capacity of the barge.

 

Pure speculation - but a logical deduction.

 

CJI.

[Ruston]

5 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Am I correct in thinking that wagons would carry a load ticket, rather than rely on the nominal painted load?

 

If so, some quick calculations by the shunter, and any necessary shunting, would allow a short rake to be formed which came close to the permitted capacity of the barge.

 

Pure speculation - but a logical deduction.

 

CJI.

There was more than one weighbridge on site, so the wagons could have been weighed and given a ticket.

 

Paul Lunn, in his article, states that the capacity was 70-75 tons due to the depth of two particular locks but that in deeper water the actual capacity was 100 tons. If the barge in the 53A photo that I linked to n Flickr is only carrying 75 tons I wonder where another 25 tons of coal would go? It's already piled pretty high! That's surely more than 75 tons? Perhaps they knew that they could easily get away with 80 tons or more and so simply dropped the contents of 4 wagons in and experience, and looking at how far down in the water the vessel rode, told them when enough was enough.

[doilum]

Not sure if I have told the tale before but as a small child one of our neighbours was an independent bargeman working mostly between Castleford and Ferrybridge. In the mid 60s he went to work for Hargreaves as part of the team that developed the 170 ton pans and pusher tugs. For the benefit of those living beyond area 8, these were a scaled down version of the monster barges that ply the river Rhine. At Ferrybridge power station the pans, which travelled in a train of three or five, were uncoupled and hoisted out of the water in a tippler tower a process that took less than five minutes per pan. By contrast, it took several hours to empty the traditional barges by grab crane. A holiday treat was to take the bus to Ferrybridge and join Mr Claxton on his empty return to his mooring by the flour mill in Castleford.

zAnd then there were the Tom Puddings...........

Edited January 29 by doilum
Auto spell

[Mark Saunders]

The plant at Ferrybridge was still there but moribund when I was last in the coal plant when they were removing the coal stocks by rail!
 

[doilum]

35 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

The plant at Ferrybridge was still there but moribund when I was last in the coal plant when they were removing the coal stocks by rail!
 

The tower appears to have been demolished on the current google maps.

[Ruston]

I've done a little more to the barge. I added some half round Evergreen strip along the sides and have now slapped some orange paint all over.

I wonder if anyone can help with some detail that I need of the rudder and how it was fixed to the hull, but it's not very clear in the photos.

 

The second from top photo on this page, and the one with the barge named Ethel show something straight and thin sticking up just forward of the hold. There's what appears to be steam coming out of the one on the barge that's next to Ethel. Is this a chimney for a stove? I would have thought they were diesel-engined and that the engine and its exhaust would be aft, so it's surely not an exhaust.

 

Another feature is the curved structure just forward of the "chimney". Would this be a cover for stairs? @figworthy

[figworthy]

22 hours ago, Ruston said:

There was more than one weighbridge on site, so the wagons could have been weighed and given a ticket.

 

Paul Lunn, in his article, states that the capacity was 70-75 tons due to the depth of two particular locks but that in deeper water the actual capacity was 100 tons.

 

The 100 ton capacity barges were known as "Sheffield" size (no prizes for guessing where they usually worked).  They were quite a bit bigger (61' 6" by 15' 3" and probably deeper), but they could only get through the locks down stream of British Oak.

[figworthy]

6 minutes ago, Ruston said:

I've done a little more to the barge. I added some half round Evergreen strip along the sides and have now slapped some orange paint all over.

I wonder if anyone can help with some detail that I need of the rudder and how it was fixed to the hull, but it's not very clear in the photos.

 

The second from top photo on this page, and the one with the barge named Ethel show something straight and thin sticking up just forward of the hold. There's what appears to be steam coming out of the one on the barge that's next to Ethel. Is this a chimney for a stove? I would have thought they were diesel-engined and that the engine and its exhaust would be aft, so it's surely not an exhaust.

 

Another feature is the curved structure just forward of the "chimney". Would this be a cover for stairs? @figworthy

 

You called ?

 

Hulls were usually black below the loaded water line, originally tar (on the wooden boats), and I'm not sure what on the iron/steel ones.

 

If I were being critical, that bow is far too pointed, the traditional barges in the area where almost flat fronted, with a bit of curve on the corners.

 

Rally https://www.nationalhistoricships.org.uk/register/3773/rally was on the British Oak - Thornhill run in the last years, so you should get some good ideas on hull shape, rudder hanging etc from there.

 

Ethel (I used to know her well) had the engine (Lister JP2 ?) in the aft cabin, and the front cabin had a stove in it, along with benches (I had friends who slept down there once she was retired), so the crew (usually just the skipper), had somewhere to get a brew and eat their sandwiches in the warm and dry.

 

The curved structure is indeed a companion way cover, the upper half would slide over the lower half. There would be a ladder leading down into the cabin.

 

 

Should give you a good idea.

 

Adrian

[doilum]

I may be able to help. I have located the folder of photos I took in January 1984 of the barges moored in Castleford. I will ask my clever daughter to assist in getting them scanned and loaded on to this thread. They do include the bow and stern details only of use to a modeller. I also discovered a couple of books that area treasure trove of photos.

First, Images of England series ( there must be one for every settlement with a population over 600. Mygoodlady wife is responsible for the one on Knottingley) titled The Aire and Calder Navigation compiled by Mike Clark.Secondly I have The Canal and River Sections of the Aire and Calder Navigation by Mike Taylor. These are both picture books, ideal for modelling.

PM me if they are any use and I will get them out to you.