Here is a piece about the Aaron Manby, the first iron steamer to make a sea voyage, and its links to Irish inland waterways transport.
The piece was first published in the rally magazine of the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland Lough Derg Branch in July 2017.
Posted in Charles Wye Williams, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Historical matters, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, Passenger traffic, People, Sea, Shannon, shannon estuary, Sources, Steamers, The cattle trade, Tourism, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged Aaron Manby, Charles Napier, Charles Wye Williams, Irish Sea, iron, John Grantham, John Oldham, Liverpool, Shannon, steam
Synan Meehan, who absconded from Kilrush with £76, and was apprehended in Liverpool by Mr P O’Brien, the Dublin Steam Packet Company’s [Kilrush] agent, was brought up at the Limerick Police office on Thursday, before T P Vokes Esq, who ordered him to be sent on to Kilrush for final examination, and whither he proceeded by steamer in charge of two policemen. When arrested in Liverpool, he was in a state of intoxication, and but a few shillings were found in his possession. He stated that in February last he lost £30, which he had to make good every month when closing his accounts, and fearing it would be discovered he was induced to make off. The offender was regarded in Kilrush as a strict teetotaller, but having violated his solemn pledge to Father Mathew, little confidence could be reposed in him.
Southern Reporter and Cork Commercial Courier 12 August 1845
From the British Newspaper Archive run by Findmypast Newspaper Archive Limited, in partnership with the British Library.
The Waterloo will sail hence for Warren’s Point, This Day (FRIDAY) the 16th instant, at Three o’clock; on TUESDAY the 20th, and SUNDAY the 25th instant.
The Mountaineer, C H Townley, will sail hence for Dublin, on SUNDAY next, the 18th instant, at Three o’clock.
The Belfast will also shortly resume her station between this Port and Dublin. These being the only Steam-packets which land their Passengers AT THE CITY, by them the Public avoid the dangerous landing at Dunleary in small boats, the hazardous and expensive mode of conveyance thence to Dublin (a distance of several miles), the disagreeable disputes with boatmen, the impositions practised by the lowest order of society, with various other difficulties; against which the complaints are universal.
Days of sailing from Liverpool will be, Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday.
Apply at the Packet-office, bottom of Redcross-street, or to WILLIAM STEWART.
Liverpool Mercury 16 May 1823
From the British Newspaper Archive run by Findmypast Newspaper Archive Limited, in partnership with the British Library.
Posted in Foreign parts, Historical matters, Ireland, Passenger traffic, Sea, Steamers, Tourism
Tagged belfast, boatmen, Dublin, Dun Laoghaire, Dunleary, Kingstown, Liverpool, lower order, Mountaineer, Newry, Red Cross Street, Redcreoss Street, steam boat, Steam Packet, steamer, steamship, Warren's Point, Warrenpoint, Waterloo, William Stewart
I have written here about a series of misfortunes suffered by DUKWs in Liverpool and London. On 16 June 2013 I put up some photos of DUKWs in Dublin and Liverpool; I pointed to what seemed to me to be two differences between practices in the two cities:
First, before they enter the water at Grand Canal Dock, Ringsend, the DUKWs are fitted with extra buoyancy in cylinders that slide into racks along their sides. I saw the VikingSplash crew removing the cylinders from the yellow DUKW; it took only a couple of minutes, and I presume that it didn’t take much longer to put the cylinders on.
Second, the Dublin passengers are issued with buoyancy aids before they take to the water. I can’t see any buoyancy aids on the Liverpool passengers, although it’s possible that they are out of camera shot.
There are links on that page to photos, news reports and a seriously scary video of the sinking of a DUKW in Liverpool. Then, in September 2013, a DUKW went on fire on the Thames; my brief report and links here. In October 2013 the UK Marine Accident Investigation Branch issued a safety bulletin (my report here, with links) pointing to foam buoyancy as a common factor. The Liverpool DUKWs did not have enough buoyancy to keep them afloat if they started taking water and MAIB thought it would be impossible to get enough into them. On the London vessel,
… the most likely cause of fire was the action of the rotating drive shaft (or other moving parts) on the oil contaminated surfaces of the buoyancy foam blocks.
In November 2013 I noted that the wearing of lifejackets had been discussed in London and I commented on the policy of the Dublin operator, VikingSplash:
The point that strikes me is that, in both UK accidents, passengers had little time to don lifejackets and would have been trying to put them on in a confined space and under less than ideal conditions. It seems to me that Viking Splash’s policy [having passengers don lifejackets before taking to the water] is the right one.
In December 2014 the MAIB published its report into the two accidents. There’s a Guardian news report here [h/t gjb] and you can download the MAIB’s full report and annexes from this page. The London and Liverpool accidents are covered in the same report.
It’s well worth reading and pulls (as far as I could tell) no punches, even tearing strips off the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, both within the UK Department for Transport and both involved because the DUKW is an amphibian.
I took three main points from the report.
First, the Irish authorities seem to have thought seriously about the safety problems. My understanding of the buoyancy requirements was mistaken: the UK DUKWs had added buoyancy (although not enough, and adding more foam caused fire) and the Irish buoyancy cylinders are not designed to keep the vessel afloat. Here’s what MAIB says:
In Ireland, APV operators have been permitted to operate vintage DUKWs without having to provide any residual buoyancy. To mitigate the consequences of serious flooding, the Irish regulator required the operators to:
- Fit external buoyancy tubes designed to slow the sinking process and make the vehicle sink bodily [my emphasis].
- Retract the canopy roof and open the side curtains prior to entering the water.
- Require passengers and crew to wear PFDs while on the water.
- Provide a fast rescue craft, rescue crew and an inflatable liferaft at the slipway.
- Limit operations to a non-tidal area.
This approach focused on passenger survivability by reducing the risk of entrapment and drowning, rather than vehicle survivability, and introduced several of the interim measures recommended by the NTSB following the sinking of Miss Majestic.
The Irish model demonstrates that open topped APVs can be operated successfully in similar weather conditions to those experienced in the UK, and that passengers are willing to wear PFDs.
So big it up for the Irish Maritime Administration.
Second, if you’ve seen the video of the Liverpool sinking you may have been struck by its speed. In both Liverpool and London passengers had very little time to get out and the report’s synopsis says
In both instances, the crew had little time to co-ordinate the evacuation process and the confined nature of passenger spaces made it almost impossible for them to control or assist the passengers.
And in 4.3 Common safety issues:
8. It was extremely fortunate that all on board WQ1 and Cleopatra were able to evacuate into the water unharmed. In both cases the passengers were forced to act on instinct and exit the vehicles under their own initiative.
Any of several issues could have cut the time available and “the risk of entrapment and the likelihood of loss of life would have been considerably higher”.
So Figure 63 of a Dublin DUKW doesn’t just show the external buoyancy cylinders: the passengers are wearing buoyancy aids, there is a crewman already stationed at the stern and the side and roof canopies are open, all giving more chance of escape.
I’m not in any position to assess the overall safety of the Irish DUKW operation. What interests me here is a more general point about the evacuation of passengers from trip vessels: getting a large number of people out of a small space in a short time is not easy. And the recent problem of getting people off the Norman Atlantic didn’t make me feel any better.
Third, I am delighted that my photo of a DUKW in Liverpool was useful to the UK Marine Accident Investigation Branch (see the report’s Figure 16) but they really should have asked for permission to use it.
Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, Safety, Sources, Tourism, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged Dublin, DUKW, fire, Ireland, Liverpool, London, safety, sink, vessels, Waterways Ireland
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.
On 31 October 2013 I mentioned the UK Marine Accident Investigation Branch’s safety bulletin about the DUKW fire in London and the DUKW that sank in Liverpool. There is more on the London fire today with a Guardian report on proceedings at the London assembly’s Thames passenger boat investigation committee. The Guardian headline read …
Duck boat passengers not wearing lifejackets when jumping into Thames
… and the story reported the Maritime Coastguard Agency’s maritime safety and standards director as saying that wearing of lifejackets would not have been usual on “such boats” and that lifejackets were safely stowed above the seats. The story also said that
London Duck Tours’ managing director, John Bigos, said the Cleopatra had the required legal number of lifejackets on board and that it was company policy that lifejackets were not worn on tours. He went on: “We have our reasons for this (non-wearing) but they are not to do with commerciality.”
There is a different policy in Ireland, where the Dublin Viking Splash operation says
Lifejackets: At the water entry point, customers are required to put on a lifejacket after the driver delivers an outline about safety on the water. The lifejackets supplied by Viking Splash Tours are Solas and CE approved buoyancy aids […].
The point that strikes me is that, in both UK accidents, passengers had little time to don lifejackets and would have been trying to put them on in a confined space and under less than ideal conditions. It seems to me that Viking Splash’s policy is the right one.
Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, Safety, Tourism, Water sports activities, Waterways management
Tagged Dublin, DUKW, fire, Grand Canal, Ireland, lifejacket, Liverpool, London, Operations, safety, sinking, Thames, waterways
In June 2013 I reported on the sinking of a DUKW in Liverpool, the second of the year, and in September on the fire aboard a DUKW in London. Oddly enough, it seems that the two accidents had a common element: the foam added inside the hulls to improve buoyancy.
The UK’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch has found that the DUKWs in the Liverpool fleet had not been fitted with enough foam to provide 110% buoyancy, enough to keep the vessel afloat when flooded. MAIB’s tests on the Liverpool vessels
… raised serious questions about whether the operators of DUKWs could fit sufficient foam internally to comply with the current requirement for 110% buoyancy without compromising the safe operation and the practical day to day maintenance of these vehicles.
The “safe operation” part affected the London vessels. In July 2013, a DUKW had to be towed in after a drive shaft universal coupling failed when it overheated and ran dry of lubrication: engine bay temperatures were too high because of the volume of foam inserted. And a report commissioned by the London Fire Brigade into the September fire concluded that:
… the most likely cause of fire was the action of the rotating drive shaft (or other moving parts) on the oil contaminated surfaces of the buoyancy foam blocks.
MAIB has issued a safety bulletin [four-page PDF] with this conclusion:
The MAIB identified significant difficulties in fitting a DUKW with the volume of foam required to meet the buoyancy standards set out in MSN 1699 (M). Further, the nature of these old amphibious vessels, specifically their weight in relation to their size and the complexity of their propulsion arrangements, makes it difficult for operators to comply with the standards applicable to more conventional craft by solely using internal foam buoyancy. An alternative standard, ensuring that DUKWs have the necessary level of damage survivability, therefore needs to be established if they are to be operated safely.
It has recommended that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency should
… ensure that the means used by DUKW operators to achieve the required standard of buoyancy and stability for their vessels does not adversely impact on their safe operation. Furthermore, these vessels should not be permitted to operate until satisfactory levels of safety can be assured under all feasible operating conditions.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s website doesn’t seem to be working, but there is a BBC report here quoting an MCA person as saying
We will not be permitting the vessels to operate until we are satisfied that the necessary safety measures have been achieved.
VikingSplash DUKW in Dublin
All of this may help to explain why the VikingSplash DUKWs operating in Dublin are fitted with additional external buoyancy.
Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, Safety, Sources, Tourism, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged boats, bridge, buoyancy, canal, Dublin, DUKW, Grand Canal, Ireland, Liverpool, London, Operations, safety, vessels, VikingSplash, waterways, Waterways Ireland, workboat
Irish waterways history 