Tag Archives: vessels

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.

 

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].

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.

 

More Pathé

A train ferry, claimed to be in service on the Liffey

Fishing at Ringsend the hard way

Turf by canal

Launching the Irish Elm in Cork

A Boyne regatta

Making and using a Boyne currach in 1921 (you can learn the art yourself here)

A non-watery film: Irish Aviation Day 1936

 

Relieving Athlone

Parteen Villa Weir is sending large amounts of water down the original channel of the Shannon, and over the Falls of Doonass, to draw water off from the upper reaches of the river.

Castleconnell water level 20140210 264_resize

The footbridge at Castleconnell

Castleconnell water level 20140210 267_resize

Above the bridge

Castleconnell water level 20140210 269_resize

The downstream side of the bridge

Castleconnell water level 20140210 271_resize

A bumpy ride

Castleconnell water level 20140210 273_resize

At normal levels the bottom of the wall is several feet above the water

 

Levels below Parteen Villa have not yet reached those of 2009 and the channel can probably take more before folk get flooded.

The Old River Shannon site has some photos taken at Parteen Villa Weir.

Canal tourists or canal pensioners?

The Village at Lyons 265_resize

La Serre

Nibbling yesterday on a morsel of cured salmon, with fennel and apple salad, lemon crème fraiche and lavender jelly, at the excellent La Serre restaurant at the Village at Lyons, I looked forward to walking outside afterwards, on to the canal bank, to view the many boats that would undoubtedly be moored there, above the thirteenth lock, as their owners lunched at La Serre’s sister institution, the Canal Café.

The thirteenth lock (and its wonderful O)

The thirteenth lock (and its wonderful O)

Judge of my surprise, then, when I found not a single boat outside. I realised, though, that boaters probably walked from nearby Hazelhatch and even from Sallins. For we know, do we not, that boaters are vital to tourism? Even Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party tells us so, which means that they must be out and about along the canals, spending money (and where better to spend it than at the Canal Café?).

The Canal Café, mere feet from the canal bank

The Canal Café, mere feet from the canal bank

But a difficulty has struck me. Mr Higgins’s position is that boaters have money available for discretionary expenditure, but Senator John Kelly tells us that most boaters are “retired couples from England who are receiving small English pensions”. So one politician tells us that boaters have disposable incomes and that they should not pay money to Waterways Ireland because they spend money in pubs and restaurants along the canals; another politician tells us that boaters should not pay money to Waterways Ireland because they have none to spare.

I find it difficult to reconcile these two positions.

 

Scrap the damn thing

The Irish Times reports today, in an article that will probably disappear behind a paywall sooner or later, that some folk don’t want the Naomh Éanna, a decrepit former ferry cluttering up the Grand Canal Dock, to be scrapped.

There seems to be a reluctance to accept that things, like people, have a lifespan. Keeping them alive indefinitely costs a lot of money. And none of those quoted in the article has put forward any good reason for keeping the damn thing, never mind any reason that would justify the spending of very large amounts of money on it.

Yes, it had some interesting (if minor) historical associations, but the best way of recording them would be to write a book, or create a website, or even make a movie, about the ship’s history. Money spent that way would be a far better investment than money spent on keeping the Naomh Éanna afloat. Its heritage or historical value lies in the associated information, not in the steel.

As it is, the vessel has been hanging around for about twenty-five years, since it failed a survey in 1986 or 1988 (I have found different dates). I don’t know how much it has done since then to advance appreciation of industrial or cultural history, or whatever it is that the complainants think is being vandalised, but I would have thought that anyone who wanted to gaze on an elderly vessel has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

Addendum: it seems some folk want to draw up an investment plan.

Sallins speculation

I emailed Waterways Ireland on 4 February 2014:

I would be grateful if you could tell me whether any person applied, under byelaw 38q, for permission to hold an aquatic event on the Grand Canal at or near Sallins on or after Friday 24 January 2014.

WI said:

No-one applied to hold an aquatic event on or around that date on the Grand Canal.

If I were Waterways Ireland, and I heard a rumour (or got a tip-off from the NSA) to the effect that some boaters were going to hold a demo at Sallins, and if nobody had asked permission to hold the demo, or made any arrangements with me about it, and if I expected work to start shortly at Sallins, I might be worried that the demo might turn out to be more than a photo opportunity: that it might turn into an occupation or moor-in, one that would delay the work and possibly expose me to additional costs.

So I would do what I could, within the byelaws, to prevent the holding of the aquatic event. I would note byelaw 18 (2) (b):

(2) The Commissioners, or any authorised officer, may prohibit navigation on the canals or any part thereof from time to time for the purposes of—

( a ) an emergency, or

( b ) preventing the passage of a boat in respect of which a permit has not been issued under these Bye-Laws, or has been withdrawn, or is not displayed in the manner prescribed in Bye-law 40 of these Bye-laws.

If I were not Waterways Ireland, then, but a would-be demonstrator, I would make a note to inform the authorities next time I planned a demo so that there would be no surprises on either side.

I am, however, neither WI nor a would-be demonstrator, so (apart from the information I gleaned from WI) I know nothing of what either side may have done or not done, thought or not thought.