A Remarkable Survivor - Part 2

by Neil Marsden

In Part 1 of this article I have outlined some brief facts about the 'Daniel Adamson' from the vessel's launch in 1903 up to a point roughly in the mid 1920's following her acquisition, (still as 'Ralph Brocklebank') by the Manchester Ship Canal Company.

In this continuation I hope to carry on where I left off and if possible identify changes to the vessel over the years. Some of these are quite subtle while others are more drastic. I am almost certain to miss something and know that there are a number of people out there who will point out any errors or changes I overlook, which is exactly what I'm after. The better we know the 'Daniel Adamson' the more accurate will be the final restoration.  In fairness, I should add that we will be restricted to some extent by present legislation and the need for security in these 'enlightened times' so that the end result may not be 100% 'as it was' but will be as close to the original as possible.

At present I am in possession of a copy of a 'general arrangement' plan** drawn to a scale of 1/48, purporting to show 'Ralph Brocklebank' the plan includes some particulars of the vessel and the date '13.12.35'  Most striking on the drawing is the location of the mast, which unlike any photograph of the ship, shows it emerging from the main deck actually ahead of the casing, unlike the photographs which in every case show the mast emerging from a point on what is now the promenade deck. Indeed the plan shows two stairways, one either side of the mast, connecting the main and promenade decks, once again all photographs of 'Ralph Brocklebank' and her two consorts for that matter, show a single broad stairway set amidships.

**A section of the plan is reproduced, in this instance the outline marked in blue indicates areas to be removed in the 1936 re-build, while red denotes new structures/fittings. You will note that even this differs considerably from the final result.  [Click to enlarge]

Now look at the photos again, firstly if we look at the 'Ralph Brocklebank' in 1907 (Click Here Historic Photos page, photo miscellany) when owned by the S.U.R.& C.Co. As a rough guide count how many fenders along the hull side appear to be positioned aft of the casing, I count just two, also look at the length of the casing aft of the funnel. I accept that the fenders could be placed in different positions, but look at closer views, the fenders were positioned over special reinforced 'pads' on the hull, so were specifically placed in these locations for maximum effect.

Subsequent views show three aft of the casing. A third and constant reference point is provided by the overboard discharge from the condenser (cooling water). Compare with the 1907 photo and others on the page, particularly the Royal visit views. The difference is very apparent, also on the starboard side view from Part 1 of this article.  For those not sure of what the 'overboard discharge' is, it is the water flow from the side of the ship, seen white against the hull of the vessel in the photographs.

I believe Paragraph 5 of the 'About' page may offer an explanation. I quote 'The combined passenger carrying and towage service continued until 1915. From then until 1921 the “Ralph Brocklebank” and her two sisters “W.E. Dorrington” and “Lord Stalbridge” operated as tugs only. The Manchester Ship Canal Company acquired the three vessels in 1921.

In my humble submission, I believe that the year 1915 may have been significant in what appears to be a modification to the ship, in keeping with her change of role to pure towing duties.

The apparent reduction in length of the casing, together with attendant modifications to the towing gear, would have provided a much more versatile towing vessel, capable of handling a wider range of vessels from barges to quite large ships, no doubt a valuable expedient at this point in the Great War. At the same time it appears that the majority of her passenger accommodation, located in the forward portion of the casing and below in the area between the boiler room and fore-peak was retained.

As already mentioned, plans hold the key to confirming what changes took place over the vessel's life, they also play an important part in planning the restoration. At present we are aware of the existence of further plan drawings and their location. An important element of the Project Planning stage is to obtain working copies of these. Many of the originals are now extremely fragile and unsuitable for general use, so that it will be essential to make full size copies both on paper and on computer. The majority are very large, A1 & A0 size, so that a considerable cost will be incurred in this process. Should any member or reader have the means to assist in this vital process, we would be most grateful to hear from them.

Returning to the side elevation once more (and I do appreciate at the scale reproduced this is not an easy task) there appears to be a considerable gap between the funnel and the steering position, again something at complete variance with all the photographs. The notes accompanying the drawing mention that the 'Ralph Brocklebank' received a new boiler in 1922, being 'single ended and with three furnaces, by W.J. Yarwood & Sons. Ltd'  Naturally this replacement would have required the removal of the original boiler and the installation of the new one, through a section of the upper or promenade deck. Obviously the work would have necessitated the removal of any  deck fittings located in this area including the funnel and steering position, but photographic evidence suggests these were replaced in their 'original' (?) positions, so it is puzzling as to why the drawing suggests otherwise. Not visible on the side elevation but clearly marked on the plan view, the steam steering engine is shown as being located midships in the after most part of the casing, (beneath the 'lifeboat and davit' again only seen on the plan and in no known photograph, certainly not in such close proximity to the funnel) whilst the steering wheel is marked as having 'gear' only, though no method of linkage or operation is shown!

Overall the plan appears to pose a great many questions,  we know that for example the companionway pictured on the aft deck did indeed face the other way before the 1936 modifications, that an anchor windlass was carried forward (we are currently overhauling it today!!) we are aware that the stern frame forward of the rudder is open to allow the propeller blades clearance, but find that the marked off-set of the props. in the drawing differs considerably from the actual appearance.

My intention had been to make this a two part item, but have found that it is likely to take a little more than I anticipated to cover in any detail. I do hope that you may find it of interest. Whilst aboard, the work continues as normal, with the short daylight hours and onset of the festive season, there really isn't a lot of news to relate at present, so that I hope these articles will make up for it.

I would be delighted to hear from anyone with knowledge concerning the issues I have raised in this article, any new photographs or personal recollections would be most welcome, my contact details can be found elsewhere on the site.

I have had a copy of this plan nearly eighteen months now and have only noticed these detail differences by writing this article, yet I must have viewed the plans a hundred times before.  There is much more of interest as we look to the overhead/plan view, but for now I think we should leave that to another time, part 3 perhaps?

In the meantime, for those who were hoping for another great photo from Alan Hughes' collection, how about this post 1936 view of 'Daniel Adamson' at work, with original open wheelhouse and for 'traffic duties' minus awnings.