Heritage nonsense and the Naomh Éanna

There was a Dáil debate last week about the scrapping of the Naomh Éanna; nobody gave any good reason for keeping the vessel. Preservation proponents decided not to ask for money: instead they wanted the thing left hanging around while they worked out an “investment plan“, something that they could have done at any time over the last twenty-five years.

The funniest part was the final paragraph of the third contribution by Éamon Ó Cuív [FF, Galway West], who said:

Agus muid ag caint faoi stair, is fiú a lua gur úsáid RTÉ an bád seo le haghaidh scannán an-mhaith a rinne siad, “The Treaty”. Nuair a bhí Collins ag dul go Sasana sa scannán, is ar an mbád seo, seachas bád amuigh i nDún Laoghaire, a bhí sé. Tá ceangal stairiúil le hócáidí thar a bheith stairiúil ag an mbád sin. Níl ag teastáil ach cúpla mí ionas go mbeadh deis ag daoine rud éigin a eagrú. Beidh beagáinín slándáil i gceist. B’fhéidir go mbeidh costas beag ar Uiscebhealaí Éireann. Ní dóigh liom go mbeidh sé suntasach i gcomhthéacs an maitheas a d’fhéadfadh sé seo a dhéanamh dá gcoinneofaí an bád. Má táimid ag lord eiseamláir don rud a bhféadfadh a bheith i gcest, níl le déanamh againn ach cuairt a thabhairt ar Faing agus dul isteach ar an flying boat ansin.

Learned readers will recognise that Google Translate’s version needs improvement:

And we are talking about history, it is worth mentioning that RTÉ use the boat for a very good film they made, “The Treaty “. When Collins was going to England in the film, most of the boats, except boat out in Dun Laoghaire, it was. There are historical connections with historical events particularly at this boat. All you need is a few months so that people have the opportunity to organize something. The security bit concerned. There may be a small cost of Waterways Ireland. I do not think it will be significant in the context of the good it could do this if the boat is kept. If we lord model for what could be gcest, we do not just visit Foynes and go flying into the boat then.

So the Naomh Éanna is valuable because it was used as a film set. And Foynes flying-boat museum shows what could be done.

Foynes flying-boat

Foynes flying-boat

Up to a point, Lord Copper. You see — and I know this may come as a shock — the flying-boat on display at Foynes is not actually a real flying-boat. It’s not even a portion of a real flying-boat. It’s a reproduction of a portion of a flying-boat and it was built by a film-set designer.

If anyone really needs to be able to see around a small mid-twentieth-century ship, I suspect that the Foynes folk could provide a replica that would cost less to keep than the real thing.

Alternatively, if Dublin needs another example of a locally built vessel, and one different in form from the Cill Áirne, it could take over the Curraghgour II or the Coill an Eo, both also built in Dublin. Maybe the preservationists should start now on their investment planning.

Coill an Eo

Coill an Eo

Limerick Port old dredger Curraghgour II 6_resize

Curraghgour II

An investment plan for the Naomh Éanna?

In a debate about the Naomh Éanna in the Dáil on 13 February 2014, Joan Collins TD [People Before Profit Alliance, Dublin South Central] said:

I understand the National Asset Management Agency and the Irish Ship & Barge Fabrication Company have expressed an interest in stepping in with an investment plan to restore her to her former beauty.

I see nothing about the ship on NAMA’s website, so I cannot provide any information about its views.

According to the most recent modified accounts for the Irish Ship and Barge Fabrication Company Ltd, on file at the Companies Registration Office, its total assets at 28 February 2013 were €286 in cash.

The company had no fixed assets.

Its called-up share capital was shown as €100000 and the balance on its profit & loss account was -€99714.

According to its Annual Return (B1), made up to 30 November 2013, its authorised share capital was €200000, made up of 100000 €1.00 ordinary shares and 100000 €1.00 Non Cum Red Pref shares. Only 100 of the ordinary shares were issued: 1 was owned by Saul Casey and 99 were owned by Sam Field-Corbett. All 100000 Non Cum Red Pref shares were issued and were held by Printation Limited.

 

 

What part of “no” does Brendan Smith not understand?

On 11 February 2014 Brendan Smith [FF, Cavan-Monaghan] asked a written question and got a written answer:

To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the level of expenditure incurred to date in relation to the feasibility study and any other studies undertaken in respect of the proposed extension of the Erne Navigation from Belturbet to Killykeen and Killeshandra; if his Department proposes to review the decision not to proceed with this project any further; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick] said:

I am informed by Waterways Ireland that expenditure incurred to date in relation on this project, the Lough Oughter project, on the Erne Navigation from Belturbet to Killykeen and Killeshandra is €84,647. I am also advised that, on reviewing the environmental information from this process, Waterways Ireland considers that the environmental designations of this lake complex make the feasibility of the proposed navigation extension highly unviable.

I understand that Waterways Ireland does not, therefore, propose to pursue this project any further at this time.

The thing is that Mr Smith asked about Lough Oughter back in December and was told then:

On reviewing the environmental information from this process, Waterways Ireland considers that the environmental designations of this lake complex make the feasibility of the proposed navigation extension highly unviable. For that reason, I am advised that Waterways Ireland does not propose to pursue this project any further at this time.

Unless Mr Smith thinks that Waterways Ireland has won the Euromillions lottery since December, he is just wasting time and resources by asking again about Lough Oughter.

 

Diesel

The Revenue Commissioners [whom god bless and preserve] and their UK counterparts intend to add a new marker to rebated diesel to make it more difficult for oiks, cads and rotters to pollute the countryside.

If they had any sense, they would abolish rebated diesel altogether and force everybody — including boat-owners — to pay the full rate.

Flood plains

Patrick O’Donovan [FG, Limerick] wants to drain the Shannon. Or wants farmers to do it. He doesn’t want the “multiplicity of agencies [which] have made it virtually impossible for anything to be done with the river and the rivers and streams draining into it”; he wants a non-multiplicity of agencies — “the OPW, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Inland Fisheries Ireland or whoever” — to dig sheughs and stop flood plains flooding. He says

The one group of people who seem to have no say are those who live on the banks of the rivers or who have watched thousands of gallons of water coming in their front door and out their back door.

But he is wrong. That is the one group of people who can stop flood waters coursing through their houses and who can do it most quickly, most easily and without the permission of a single state agency.

The solution is simple: they should move house, away from the flood plains to higher ground.

Lowering Lough Derg

Boat-owners concerned about high water levels on Lough Derg will be glad to know that relief is in sight, although it may take a little while to arrive. Irish Water has taken over the project to send Shannon water to Dublin and is procuring something, although it is not at all clear what that is. The, er, news item is so far leading in the competition for least informative press release of the year.

M’Gauley’s mysterious mechanism

In 1851 Alex Thom, Printer and Publisher of Dublin, produced the third edition of Lectures on Natural Philosophy by the Rev James William M’Gauley, Canon &c, Professor of Natural Philosophy and one of the Heads of the Training Department to the National Board of Education in Ireland. [The Morning Post of 9 October 1840 suggests that the first edition seems to have been in 1840: Longman, Orme & Co in London, W Curry, jun & Co in Dublin and Fraser and Crawford in Edinburgh.]

You can read the third edition of the Lectures here, paying special attention to any electro-magnetic apparatus, given that the Rev James read papers on the subject to the meetings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Dublin in 1835 and in Liverpool in 1837.

But I can find nothing, there or elsewhere, about his contributions to steam propulsion on canals. Several British newspapers copied this story from the Dublin Pilot in 1837:

We understand that the Rev Mr M’Gauley, of Marlborough-street, in this city, has completed a series of experiments upon a subject which for some time has occupied his attention — the application of steam to canal boats, with perfect success.

Our readers are aware that the great obstacle to the application of steam to packet boats on canals is caused by the great injury which would arise to the banks from the wave created by the paddles. He has, it seems, adopted a paddle on an altogether new principle; one of great simplicity and of such a nature that the injury to the banks shall not be greater than what is produced by the ordinary boat.

He gets rid entirely of backwater, his paddles work without noise, and require for their application a steam engine of the simplest construction.

It is said that Mr M’Gauley contemplates a velocity which to seem possible would require his working model to be understood. We hope and indeed believe, that Mr M’Gauley will not have to contend with apathy and want of enterprise in the introduction of so important an application of steam in Ireland, one which would render our canals incalculably more profitable and more useful than at present, and to give us an opportunity of consuming to advantage the turf with which so large a portion of the country is covered.

And in its issue of 29 December 1838 [No 803] the Mechanics’ Magazine, Museum, Register, Journal, & Gazette carried this story from the Dublin Post:

Steam-boats on Canals. — The Rev J W M’Gauley, Professor of Natural Philosophy to the Board of Education, we understand, has at length succeeded in fabricating a machine for propelling boats on canals without raising a surge, which has been very detrimental to the banks, causing a considerable annual outlay to keep them in repair.

The power will be derived from a steam-engine; but instead of the usual paddle-wheels, there will be a machine immerged in the water underneath the centre of the boat, the working of which will not cause the least ripple on the surface of the water. There will be a public test of the invention on the Grand Canal about a fortnight hence, with a boat fitted up under the immediate inspection of the Rev gentleman.

But I have found nothing after that: no report of the success or otherwise of the machine. I would be grateful for information from anyone who knows anything about it.

By 1840 the Rev M’Gauley’s attention had returned to electro-magnetic apparatus with a practical application. In November and December of that year several British newspapers reproduced this report from the Dublin Monitor [I take this from the Leicester Chronicle, which was so excited that it reported the news twice, on 21 November and 12 December 1840]:

Important improvement. — The Rev Professor M’Gauley, whose scientific experiments in electro-magnetism excited so much interest in the philosophic world some time ago, has communicated to some of the principal Railway Companies in England a valuable invention, which will be attended with most important results in the preservation of life and property from almost all the casualties to which they are at present subjected in railway travelling.

His object is to render the stoppage of the train entirely independent of the engine conductors; so that, should they, as was lately the case, fall asleep, get drunk, or otherwise become incapacitated for the discharge of their responsible duties, the steam can be turned off, and the train stopped, totally independent of them. The simple announcement of the object of Mr M’Gauley’s invention is sufficient to render its vast importance obvious to every man who has bestowed one moment’s thought upon the subject. We have been favoured with an examination of the invention, and consider it at once simple, ingenious, and admirably adapted to effect the desired end; its cost is trifling.

This important improvement has been submitted to the directors of some of the first lines of railway in England, to the Dublin and Kingstown and Ulster Railway Companies who are giving it their best consideration, and, we presume, will test its utility by experiment.

Addendum April 2017:  could this be relevant?

More on M’Gauley (lots of variant spellings) in Wikipedia and here in a short notice at the bottom right of page 376 of The Engineer for 1 November 1867 [PDF courtesy of Grace’s Guide]. Who knew that folk left the priesthood and got married in the nineteenth century?

A further brief mention here [January 2019].

A missed opportunity for railways

The Leeds Intelligencer of Saturday 16 September 1837 reported on the seventh annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, which had begun at Liverpool on the previous Monday. The Mechanical Science section met, appropriately, at the Mechanics’ Institution with Professor Robinson of Armagh, President, in the chair.

It heard papers from Mr Williams on the Treffos Pump, Mr Kingsley on the Perspective Drawing Board, Mr Henwood on the Expansive Action of Steam in Cornish Mine Engines and Mr Russell on the Motion of Steamers in Shallow Waters. But the first and greatest paper was not delivered by its author, Mr G Remington [presumably George Remington, railway engineer], who was absent, but by Dr Lardner. Its subject was

… the Railway Balance Lock. The object of this was to do that upon Railways which is accomplished on Canals by means of Locks, namely, to raise the trains to any given height, according to the inequality of that surface.

You can read more about it here; interweb search engines will find more references. Perhaps it is not too late to have this innovation adopted.

Registered boats

Waterways Ireland (whom God preserve) tell me that, at end December 2013, there were

  • 8816 boats registered on the Shannon
  • 5570 boats registered on the Erne.

There are different requirements for registration on the two waterways. But the main problem with the figures is that there is no incentive to deregister if a boat is sold off the system. As there is no annual charge for registration (or anything else), an owner whose boat is sold to an owner overseas or indeed on the sea loses nothing by failing to deregister. it is therefore possible that the figures overstate the numbers of registrable boats on the two systems [on the Shannon–Erne Waterway, which registration on either of the other two is required]. And then there are the boats that are not required to be registered ….

But, for what they’re worth, there the figures are.

 

Big it up for the OPW

I’ve just been reading some particularly nitwitted Dáil discussions and I need some time to calm down enough to report on them to the Learned Readers of this site. Let me just say that anyone who thinks that politicians cannot distinguish fact from fiction is absolutely right. But enough of that for the moment.

I reported earlier on an oddity in the results from the OPW’s Athlone waterlevel gauge. I emailed the OPW about it and a helpful chap got back on more or less immediately.

He explained that the data we see on the waterlevel.ie site is, as it were, live: raw unfiltered data with nothing added, nothing taken away. The same data goes in to the OPW and they spotted that the Athlone gauge was reading too high. They found the sensor was faulty; they have now adjusted it and the new, lower readings are correct.

The disappearance of the placenames is because of some work in progress on improving the website; they will be back.

He kindly pointed me to a list, in .xlsm format, downloadable from here; it shows all hydrometric stations in Ireland. It shows who operates them, whether they’re active and whether they use telemetry (which I take to mean that they can be monitored remotely). Unfortunately OPW itself doesn’t seem to have any gauges on Lough Derg and nor does Waterways Ireland. OPW does have a rather excitable gauge at Scarriff and gauges upstream of Meelick Weir and Meelick (Victoria) Lock. The ESB has gauges with telemetry at Ballyvalley (25073) and Killaloe (25074) but I can’t find any website giving the levels. If, Gentle Reader, you can find one, perhaps you would let us know.

The consoling part of dealing with the OPW is that you get the distinct impression that they know some useful stuff. Unlike, say, some folk working in Kildare Street ….