A Remarkable Survivor - Part 4

 In Part 3, we actually made it to include the plan elevation of the drawing and having discussed bunker and stokehold alterations, I had planned to move swiftly on. That is until my latest visit to the ship. I wanted another look in the stokehold to see where those ‘wing bunkers’ on the plan had been. Well there is very little evidence of them now at all. Obviously those circular scuttles have long been plated over, or rather replaced with new plates entirely, as no sign of them remains viewed from the stokehold. It would also seem that the existing ‘hotwell’ tank is a later addition and could only have been installed after the wing bunkers were removed. It seems unlikely that the port wing bunker would have been of much value with the hotwell in place. In conversation with Chief Engineer, John Deakin, he points out that the original system may not have included a hotwell, the basic boiler feed arrangements being adequate to the task.

The plan shows what appears to be another anomaly in that the engine-room entrance door is shown as amidships in the aft bulkhead of the engine casing, which itself differs considerably from the present version.

In the drawing, the engine casing is effectively 3’6” shorter in length (a notation marked on the amended plan, visible between the two ‘hypothetical lifeboats’ reads, “Tow Hook moved forward 3’6”) and by the plan’s scale, a total of 4’ narrower than the main casing. The narrower casing allows for doors, port and starboard, accessing the crew toilet (port) and lamp room (stb’d) in the aft bulkhead of the main casing.

The engine-room skylights comprise two panels as now, but incorporate three ports apiece in a more conventional style. Judging by the position of the towing gear it would seem unlikely that the panels themselves could be opened, or removed as with those fitted today, so that ventilation would appear to have been limited.

Another major difference is the presence of two, tow bows, one immediately in line with the aft bulkhead of the engine-room casing and the second aft of the crew companionway. Both extend to the ship’s sides in conventional style.

It is doubtful that as built, the vessel would have been provided with a comprehensive electrical system, if at all and more likely oil lamps would have been used for the majority of artificial illumination. Considerable use was made of natural sunlight with much evidence of skylights and deck-lights on the plans. In the latter case no fewer than ten are shown and clearly marked as ‘Hayward Lights’ These are pretty interesting in their own right and I’m delighted to report that four ‘escaped’ all the vessel’s transformations, to survive today. Sadly they have suffered quite badly at the hands of the vandals, but some lenses remain and it is hoped to fully restore these in due course. Basically they are pavement glass, the type one might see set into the foot-walk outside older shops, offices etc. Usually they provide illumination to a cellar or basement area of a building.

Called ‘Hayward Lights’ they were patented by a London glassmaker of that name. His patent, notes that he developed the idea from ship’s deck-lights, so in effect the wheel has come full circle. As far as is known it appears these remaining examples are the sole survivors ‘afloat’ today.

Our links page provides further information on this subject (See Peninsulators Link, now re-named www.glassian.org ) The site by Ian Macky, features the ‘Daniel Adamson’ on http://glassian.org/Prism/Deck/Daniel_Adamson/index.html and the fascinating story of the Hayward family of London, one of whom not only founded the company, but fathered no less than twenty six children, by two wives!! Sounds like he discovered ‘the (re)production line’ too! Read more at…….. http://glassian.org/Prism/Hayward/index.html#H13

The final puzzle of the plan (so far!) concerns the crew’s accommodation, this shows just four berths for the Captain, Engineer and two crew, whereas we know this area actually provided berths for seven persons. It is inconceivable that four crew could operate the vessel before 1935, while it needed seven, excluding catering staff to operate in the 1980’s.  Again if the plan is not wrong, where did the remainder of the crew sleep? No further accommodation is denoted on the plan.

In reality both the Captain and Chief Engineer had a small separate room, each with a bunk running fore and aft, as well as a seat lying athwartships.  Each ‘cabin’ had a ‘Hayward Light’ set in the deck-head, as did the adjoining cabins for the Mate and Second Engineer, the deck-lights are shown, but not the smaller cabins. In these the bunks lay athwartships, with drawers under. Finally the aftermost section contained a further three berths, plus locker space.  All in all the accommodation was sufficiently commodious as to allow a separate small mess area for the Captain and Chief, with another for the remaining crew. Sadly we currently possess no known photographs of this space prior to ‘DAPS’ acquisition of the vessel, by which time, vandals, water ingress and twenty years had done their worst. If anyone does have a photo or photos of this area, however, poor they would be of great value in ensuring the accuracy of the restoration. Photos can be copied and returned if required.

I believe this now covers the general arrangement plan and the apparent questions arising from it.

Photograph of ‘Charles Galloway’ (prior to 1900) from the Percy Dumbavand Collection.

Particulars

‘Charles Galloway’

 Registered: LR25-26: 16318/(GBR) ON:105668

127GRT. L.27.48m B.5.84m D.2.62m (90.2’ x 19.2’ x 8.6’)

Steel, 2 screw, 2 x C2cyl. By G.T. Grey, 72 nhp.

1895: Built by J.T.Eltringham & Co. South Shields

1895: Delivered to Manchester Ship Canal Co.

1929: Broken up.

As we know from the ‘About Page’ the Ship Canal’s inspection vessel, ‘Charles Galloway’ was scrapped in 1929 and thereafter her duties fell to ‘Ralph Brocklebank’

We can only speculate as to why she was chosen over her running mates, ‘W.E. Dorrington’ and ‘Lord Stalbridge’ which were, presumably, originally fitted with similar passenger facilities. Whatever the reason it was six years before the ‘Ralph Brocklebank’ was considered in need of modification.

In the meantime, it would seem she soldiered on with basically the same passenger facilities as installed when she was first built. Judging by the plan drawing these could best be described as pretty basic, from photographs it appears the fitting of awnings to the bridge and aft main deck added some improvement and would seem to have provided the germ of an idea for her future modifications.

Photo-Alan Hughes Collection

As has been mentioned previously the principal alteration concerned the enlargement of the saloons, the uppermost requiring the most drastic work

It will be seen from the plan that this involved extending the upper saloon forward, whilst at the same time extending the bridge/promenade deck to the ship’s sides. The promenade deck was also to be fitted with a permanent framework for a removable awning and canvas side screens to the ship’s rail. Clearly this would mean that the steering position could not be neglected and a new, elevated wheelhouse was required to overcome the restricted view from the original location.

In turn, modifications would be required to the steering arrangements and the steam steering engine re-located to the wheelhouse. This would also allow alteration of the existing system and the freeing up of the space previously used for this machinery and adjoining rooms, aft of the boiler-room. This space was needed to provide new access steps between the main and promenade deck. I can confirm from measuring the width of the stairway today that this is exactly 42” or 3’6” as per the 1935 plan notes!

The final piece of major surgery involved the engine casing, bunker hatches, tow hook, skylights and engine-room access doors. While new deckhouses would be required to replace the crew toilet, lamp room and the galley, now displaced from it’s original location at the after end of the upper saloon.

These deckhouses were installed on the aft main deck roughly in the location of the aft tow-bow, which they in turn replaced. As will be seen from photos of the time, these deckhouses were of the same size, the starboard one containing a coal fired galley, the stovepipe of which led up from the aft bulkhead. A modified ‘tow-bow’ joined the two deckhouses across the deck, the arched sides of the structures completing the design. Twin bollards originally (according to the plan) sited immediately aft of the engine casing were removed and replaced by a single set aft of the line of the deckhouses, to allow the towrope to be ‘gogged’ (or ‘gobbed’ ** dependent on preference!) as required.

So at last we have arrived in 1936, hopefully with a clearer idea of what alterations were decided upon and in some cases why. For what happened next, ‘tune in next week…..for Episode 5 of ‘A Remarkable Survivor!’ **

I realise that I have used a number of terms in these articles which readers may not be familiar with. I also concede that, insofar as the detailed use to which these terms apply I am woefully unqualified to comment with authority. I do hope to persuade one of my more qualified fellow members to provide an explanatory glossary to accompany this series.

Finally, another view of the ‘Charles Galloway’ in this case dated after 1925.

Only the addition of a mast appears readily evident, yet it clearly demonstrates her dual capability as a tug and inspection vessel. It is tempting to suggest that her forward saloon may have inspired the modifications of her successor?