Category Archives: Shannon

You can run …

… but you can’t hide. Harbour hoggers, and folk not meeting the new canals requirements, should watch out.

WI's eye in the sky

WI’s eye in the sky

[h/t & © JC]

[yes, I know]

Northsouthery 121212

The North/South Ministerial Council reports here [PDF] on the most recent inland waterways meeting, which was held on 121212. Not much happened (or at least not much that is being revealed to the citizens and subjects). Sponsor departments are to think about having a board; there is still no money for the Clones Sheugh but an interagency groups is to find some [hint: look under the end of a rainbow] and it was John Martin’s last appearance as he will be retiring in March and the search for a new CEO has a process (which is important).

The interesting bit is that WI is to transfer some property at Harvey’s Quay, Limerick, to Limerick City Council, which is making a boardwalk. And something similar is happening in Tullamore. You’re nobody nowadays unless you have a boardwalk; their usefulness in Irish weather is not proven.

Finally, I noted a certain modesty in WI’s aims for 2013, no doubt in keeping with the tenor of the times:

Ministers discussed the main priorities for Waterways Ireland in 2013 and noted progress on the 2013 Business Plan and Budget. The priorities for 2013 include:

• ensure the navigations are open and all existing facilities operational during the main boating season from April to October
• to actively promote the waterways to extend and expand recreational use of the waterways in all its forms.

 

Mountshannon

In the Foreword to his latest book, Portraits of Mountshannon (East Clare Heritage, Tuamgraney 2012), Ger Madden writes of the changes to Mountshannon since 1993:

The Aistear, the children’s playground, the pre-school building, the floating jetties at the harbour, additional restaurants and shops have been hugely positive and successful. The same cannot be said for housing. Ten years of reasonable prosperity for some, has resulted in new private holiday homes built on the fringes of the village and others planned. They are not associated with the needs of the community. The majority of the owners have not the slightest interest in the history, culture or welfare of the community they have chosen to display their wealth.

Any such owners wishing to develop an interest in the history of Mountshannon could not do better than to start with Ger’s book. It’s A4 landscape, with an aerial colour photo of Mountshannon on the front and a map on the back. Inside, the foreword gives a brief overview of Mountshannon’s history. Then follow 52 pages, each with a black and white photo and each covering a building, a tree or a place of interest in and around Mountshannon. Their locations are shown on the map on the back cover.

But, although architectural information is provided, the book is not about the buildings per se. Each page is a window into Mountshannon’s history and, together, they provide a rich account of the place and its people over the centuries. Part of the interest is in the fact that buildings you might pass by without noticing turn out to have interesting stories attached to them. Nor are they all about the distant past: I was glad to see that Mountshannon’s more recent claim to fame, as the last telephone exchange in the country to be automated, was recognised here (although I suppose that too may seem like the distant past to younger readers).

I highly recommend the book. If you’re in the area, you’ll probably know better than I where to get copies; if you’re not, you might ask East Clare Heritage.

Ger runs boat trips to Holy Island during the summer.

 

The end of an era

Ger Reid, the Ardnacrusha lockkeeper, retired at the end of December 2012. Ger has guided many boats through the locks over the years and has always been cheerful and reassuring as well as informative, helpful, reliable and competent. He will be sadly missed but I wish him well in his retirement.

Meanwhile, I have heard that Limerick City Council has decided not to renew Pat Lysaght’s contract for work on the river and has suggested that Waterways Ireland should retain him. Pat’s most important role, though, in assisting boats passing through Limerick (220 in 2012), has always been voluntary. Were Pat to cease to provide that service, I think the number of boats visiting Limerick would be greatly reduced.

Around the world with Irish waterways

Yesterday was one of those days: I managed to track down sources for several pieces of information I’ve been hunting for some time, but in the process I came across a few interesting links, from Gordon of Khartoum to the War between the States.

The starting point was William Watson, manager of the Inland Department and later Chairman of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. He worked with Robert Mallet on the design of an innovative boat for use on Irish inland waterways. Robert Mallet married a Cordelia Watson in 1831. (I thought that might be a daughter of William of the CoDSPCo but it’s pretty clear from the excellent Mallett Family History site that that was not so.)

One of Mallet’s inventions was a large mortar designed for use in the Crimean War. And one of Mallet’s sons, John William Mallet, went to the USA and became professor of chemistry at the University of Alabama. He joined the Confederate forces, rising to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the artillery and superintendent of the Confederate ordnance laboratories.

Meanwhile Watson’s son Charles Moore went east rather than west. Colonel Sir Charles Moore Watson KCMG, CB, MA, of the Royal Engineers, Watson Pasha, was a general in the Egyptian Army and Governor-General of the Red Sea Littoral. Watson’s base was at Suakin on the Red Sea. The Dubliner was succeeded in that post by a Kerryman, Horatio Herbert Kitchener, from Ballylongford near Saleen on the Shannon Estuary, on which the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company operated.

Watson was “Gordon’s principal friend in Egypt”:

It is certain that Watson was, above all others, the one man in Cairo whom Gordon cared about most, and that he was the last to see Gordon off when he started [for Khartoum].

Gordon died at Khartoum; the relief expedition, led by another Irishman, Sir Garnet Wolseley, arrived two days too late.

A younger brother of Sir Garnet, Frederick Wolseley, went to Australia. His Sheep Shearing Machine Company made a brief expedition into the manufacture of motor-cars, under one Herbert Austin, who later founded his own company. Austin and Wolseley both ended up in British Leyland Motor Corporation, which made diesel engines, some of which were marinised and used in boats on the Irish inland waterways … which brings us back to where we started.

Please, sir, I want some more

I have written from time to time about the Heritage Council and the budget cuts it has suffered. Here’s a comment from December 2010; here I said that the Council’s vigorous lobbying campaign had succeeded in ensuring its own survival; last month it became clear that, although the Council had survived, its main grants scheme had not.

The dauntless Michael Starrett returns to battle in today’s Irish Times [incidentally, if the Irish Times tries to charge me for linking to their site, I’ll set McGarr Solicitors on them]. He argues that natural and cultural heritage are the core of the tourism product and that they are being damaged by the withdrawal of (inter alia) the Council’s programme of (mostly small) grants to (mostly small) community projects.

This line of argument accords with that used by the Council in its successful campaign to ensure its own survival. It was made explicit in the report Economic Value of Ireland’s Historic Environment [PDF] produced by Ecorys and Fitzpatrick Associates for the Heritage Council and launched in May 2012. However, there are some difficulties with its use in the present context.

The first is that some folk might feel that heritage (natural or built) should be appreciated for itself, not for its economic value. That’s fine as long as people do it on their own time; I lose sympathy when that argument is used to extract money from taxpayers while hiding the economic cost and distracting attention from the beneficiaries of that spending.

The second difficulty is that the Economic Value of Ireland’s Historic Environment concentrates on larger sites and attractions:

Reflecting these various criteria, Ireland’s historic environment has been defined for the purposes of this study as comprising the following sets of built heritage assets – those which are statutorily protected, together with components of the broader built heritage:

– World Heritage Sites
– Recorded Monuments, as defined by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht
– Protected Structures included in planning authorities’ development plans
– Architectural Conservation Areas included in planning authorities’ development plans
– Designed landscapes surveyed by the Inventory of Architectural Heritage, and
– Other structures erected pre-1919, of which a note says “This is an increasingly accepted definitional component for the broader built heritage, although it is  acknowledged that some Protected Structures may have been built post 1919. Up to 1919 most houses in Ireland and Great Britain were built by skilled craftsmen using traditional indigenous building materials. Although the majority of older buildings are not listed/ statutorily protected, the majority provide flexible domestic and office accommodation. Major investment in money, energy and materials is embodied in these structures.”

The economic impact of the sector is the sum of three things:

  • Direct repair and maintenance output in relation to pre-1919
    building stock
  • Direct tourism expenditure by tourists principally attracted to
    Ireland by the Historic Environment (HE)
  • Direct employment, expenditure and income by the public sector (eg the Office of Public Works), subtracting overlap with the repair and maintenance category and the tourism expenditure category.

Eight of the ten case-studies considered in the report are about large sites, some of them commercial operations and others state-owned. The two exceptions are the Irish Landmark Trust and the Heritage Council’s grant scheme for traditional farm buildings.

Now, as far as I can make out, a lot of the recipients of Heritage Council grants (generally, not just those for farm buildings) would have fallen into the “Other structures erected pre-1919” category. I have not been able to discover, from the report, how much of the Historic Environment’s contribution to Gross Value Added is attributable to that category, or to any other category that might include the Council’s recipients of small grants.

In effect, the report seems to me to made some very broad-brush claims about the annual value of the Historic Environment, and those claims are being used to cast a halo effect over the entire sector. But it is not, it seems to me, proven that spending on any particular sub-sector is a good investment. (If I am wrong on that, I would welcome comments.)

Furthermore, I suspect that most of the contribution of the small projects supported by Heritage Council grants would come from the spending on repair and maintenance (where the total contribution is arrived at after some pretty heroic assumptions) rather than from that by tourists. Approaching it from the bottom up, I suspect that very few tourists are attracted to Ireland by the fact that the Heritage Council has grant-aided the clearing of an individual graveyard or the removal of rhododendron from a woodland.

So the argument that is being presented today, that (to quote the headline) “Tourism will suffer without real support for heritage” where “heritage” means “small local projects”, is not convincing. And it is rendered even less convincing by the fact that Heritage Council grants schemes explicitly gave low priority to tourism projects. But that is not to say that the small schemes are without value: there could and, I would argue, should be an effort to use them as part of the tourism marketing effort.

But there is a real difficulty here. How do you market small-scale tourism attractions? How does a small enterprise, or a small community, sell its heritage? How do the overseers of the national tourism product get tourists out of the well-known areas and off the beaten track, to places where they can meet real people and see real stuff? Maybe that’s what The Ghastly Gathering is about [I’m sorry: I can’t bring myself to read it].

Towards the end of his article, Michael Starrett talks in terms of landscapes, and I think he is right to use a term that is broader than a single site or location for a project. To have an impact, to be marketable, small projects need to be linked. Some of those links could be geographical, within a single area or landscape; some could be temporal, some familial, yet others commercial or otherwise thematic (for instance, the fascinating history of the Irish egg trade). I think that the small projects can help to attract tourists, but they need to be organised.

 

Melancholy loss of life on the River Shannon

Last Wednesday we were witness to a most melancholy spectacle. We saw three bodies floating on that part of the river Shannon which lies opposite to Castle Lough, in this county. Having rowed in to shore, we gave notice to some persons there, who, without hesitation, prepared themselves, and joined in the sad task of snatching from the watery element the livid bodies of three unfortunate fellow creatures. When we stretched them on the bank they were recognised by one of the Steam Packet Company to be the bodies of Thomas Minshoe, George Halbert, and Robert Williams, three of the unfortunate five that were drowned some few days ago, while on a party of pleasure. The bodies were far advanced in a state of putrefaction and were a revolting spectacle to look on.

A messenger being despatched to Nenagh for the coroner, James Carroll, Esq, that officer, with his usual promptness, reached here in a short time; and having empanelled a jury, “Accidentally drowned during a squall” was the verdict.

It appeared from evidence that the deceased, with others, left Killaloe on Sunday, the 20th ult, for the purpose of having a day’s amusement on the Upper Shannon. They put in at Castle Lough to take refreshment; during the time they were on shore, the wind freshened and blew a gale, upon which they determined to leave the boat at anchor, and proceed home by land, which they accordingly did. On the following morning they returned and found that the ropes, which were for the purpose of lowering the sails, had been stolen. The day being fine and the weather not likely to change, they made light of the inconvenience, and ventured homeward.

After hoisting sails and reaching the centre of the river (which, at this point, is not two miles broad), a squall came on. Having endeavoured in vain to lower sails, which was completely impracticable, on account of the loss of the ropes, the boat suddenly ducked beneath the weight of canvass, and consigned the poor fellows to an early grave. Thomas Minshoe and George Halbert are natives of Liverpool, and Williams from Wales.

No coffins being convenient, three fishermen were appointed to watch the bodies on the shore until the next day. When we saw them coffined, we observed that the ear had been eaten off Williams by, we suppose, a dog, and a part of Minshoe’s left leg. They were interred at Killaloe on the afternoon of Thursday.

1 September 1837

Blarna, Canima and the Liffey Dockyard

Pat Sweeney, in Liffey Ships & Shipbuilding [Mercier Press, Cork 2010], tells us that in December 1960 Cork Harbour Commissioners got permission to raise a loan of £250,000 to build two diesel-powered tenders to carry passengers to and from transatlantic liners moored in Cobh. The tenders were built by the Liffey Dockyard in Dublin; the MV Blarna was launched in May 1961 and her sister MV Cill Airne in February 1962.

After a varied career, the MV Cill Airne is now back on the Liffey as a floating restaurant. Her website says that she and her sister were the last rivetted ships built in Europe; they were the third-last and second-last ships to be built at the Alexandra Basin, the last being the Shannon Navigation’s Coill-an-Eo.

MV Blarna spent much of her life in Bermuda as a party boat named Canimabut then spent ten years in Canada waiting vainly for restoration or conversion and coming to be regarded as an eyesore. That period is now over: the “Millbank eyesore“, the Canima, sank in December 2012 and “salvage may not be an option“.

h/t Niall Galway

What’s it oil about?

What with all those nasty chaps [PDF] doing whatever it is they do to diesel, thereby cheating the citizenry and polluting the countryside, it seems that the Revenue Commissioners, whom god bless and preserve, came up with a new scheme last year that might be made to look like a solution. (The real solution, of course, is to abolish green diesel, charge everyone full whack, and — if you really must, although personally I think they get too much subsidy as it is — give farmers back some money to shut them up … for a while.)

The new scheme is outlined here. As far as I can make out (but IANAL), anyone selling marked fuel oil (which I guess would include marinas selling it for private pleasure navigation, the category I’m interested in) has to pay €250 to get a Marked Fuel Trader’s Licence.

Actually, I may be simplifying it unduly: first they have to apply to be allowed to apply.

If this Application is approved the National Excise Licence Office will issue you with an Application Notice to apply for the Licence.

If the marina counts as a “forecourt retailer”, it also has to make a monthly electronic return of “oil movements”.

These requirements came into effect on 1 October 2012 and the Revenue website provides a 147-page PDF list of licence-holders as at 31 December 2012. I’ve had a quick look for a few Shannon marinas; I found none of them, although I confess I haven’t read the whole thing.

I haven’t been to any of the seminars (although I’ve looked at some of the PDFs available on that page) and I haven’t contacted the official sources of information (although I have emailed the Revenue press office). I have read the FAQ, though. There is no reference to boats or marinas or private pleasure navigation, so I assume that the scheme does apply to marinas. As far as I can see (again, IANAL), all traders in marked fuel must have licences, even if they sell only small quantities. However, for those selling under 2000 litres per customer per month, there is a simpler monthly return:

However, if you supply less than 2,000 litres per month per customer, you only need to notify Revenue of the number of customers you supplied during the month as well as the aggregate quantity of fuel supplied.

That would cover most marinas, I imagine, although the ROM1 procedure still has to be used.

The first return, in respect of oil movements during January 2013, must be submitted by 25 February 2013.

So does this apply to marinas? I’ve asked Revenue but I don’t expect to hear for a few days. If it does apply, what will the effect be? Is the increased cost (time to compile the application and meet any Revenue demands; €250; whatever the ROM1 system costs) likely to be significant? How are the marinas (and other waterways fuel retailers) responding?

Carrying on the Royal Canal

This is a point I’ve come across in passing. It’s not central to my main concerns so I won’t pursue it further for the moment, but I’m posting it here in case it helps anyone else researching the subject.

It will be recalled that, until the passing of the Canal Carriers Acts 1845 and 1847, most canal companies carried passengers but not freight on their own canals. After the passing of those acts, the Grand Canal Company set out to take over the bulk of the freight business on their own canal (and, in consequence, on the rivers connected thereto). But what of the Royal Canal, which had been taken over by the Midland Great Western Railway in 1845?

Ruth Delany, in Ireland’s Royal Canal 1789–2009 [with Ian Bath; The Lilliput Press, Dublin 2010], says on page 192:

In 1871, despite its failure to show a profit on the Grand Canal lease, the MGWR decided to try acting as carriers on the Royal, which had been permitted by legislation since 1845. Horse-drawn boats were used until 1875 when five steamers were purchased: Rambler, Rattler, Mermaid, Conqueror and Pioneer.

In a note, she says

For this period, 1849–1906, the principal source of information is found in the minutes of evidence to the Shuttleworth Commission, HC 1907 (Cd 3717), XXXIII, Part 1, 9.

Peter Clarke, in his The Royal Canal: the complete story (ELO Publications, Dublin 1992), says:

It is important to recall that at this time, the carriage of goods on the canal was undertaken by a number of boat owners who paid tolls to the railway company. The failure to have these tolls increased was what most probably prompted the railway company to establish themselves as carriers on the canal in 1870. […] Until 1876 an unknown number of railway owned horse drawn barges were used. In that year, the service was expanded when four new screw propelled boats were purchased at a cost of £5000.

His source is the Waterways Commission of 1923, Minutes of Evidence nineteenth day, p13.

Ernie Shepherd in The Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland: an illustrated history (Midland Publishing Ltd, Leicester 1994), says

The MGW decided to operare its own carrying trade in 1871 and this lasted until 1886. Horse drawn boats were used until 1875 when steamers were purchased.

On 15 August 1853 The Freeman’s Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser of Dublin carried this notice in the Railways column.

Midland Great Western Railway (Ireland) Company — Royal Canal

Haulage of boats

The Directors will receive Proposals for the Haulage of their Trade Boats to and from Dublin and Longford and the River Shannon, from and after the 12th November next. Parties are at liberty to tender for a part or the whole of the work. Security will be required for the fulfilment of the Contract; and further particulars may be had on application at this Office.

Tenders to be sent in on or before 10th September next.

By order, Henry Beausire, Secretary.
Dublin Terminus, 10th August, 1853

This suggests that, in 1853, the MGWR had its own trade boats (lumber boats, freight-carrying barges) at work on the Royal Canal. It would be nice to know more. I have said before that we do not know anything like the full history of the Royal Canal.