The fate of Irish Lightships

DavidGD · 27-02-2015 5:41pm

Having laid tiles along the side decks without trimming, Simon decided they would look better and lie better trimmed to size, which they certainly do (Photo 851).

That was hard work but reasonably straightforward. Then he got down to the tricky bits where the mats had to be cut to fit around various fitting and fixtures (Photo 852).

He reported “I am rather enjoying the challenge now. It's like really thick, awkward wallpaper...”, which of course he should be good at! He progressed to the Hawspipes I mentioned in the last post (Photo 853).

By this time his industrial-type gloves were looking a bit worse for wear! (Photo 854).

Finally, in order to protect his newly finished decks from the twice-daily back-and-forth of the gangway wheels and to protect the gunwale beneath the gangway (at high tide the gangway actually rocks on the gunwale), Simon had a steel ‘runway’ fabricated and it is now in place (Photo 855).
David

DavidGD · 06-03-2015 12:35pm

I have for some time been urging Simon to cut a hole in the stump of the lantern mast. I was of course eager to see whether there was a ladder inside, which would probably indicate that what is left of it is as old as the ship itself. Simon has at last cut a (small) viewing hole in the mast (Photo 861).
His photography is not the best, but the hole is small and the mast is only 2ft in diameter.
In spite of such constricted circumstances, he did capture the evidence I was looking for – rungs of an internal ladder (Photo 862).
This ladder is made up of individual rungs bolted to the mast and not a complete ladder as in the mast of LV Guillemot – a more modern vessel and in good shape (Photo 863).
The Guillemot mast has an access hatch (Photo 864). I do not call it a door because it is obviously securely bolted in place and not much used (emergencies only?). It is very similar to the bolted hatch on Cormorant’s mast, but in better condition!
Now the Cormorant mast measured 2ft in diameter, which must have made climbing inside it a fairly claustrophobic experience. I have a fairly slim build at 175lb, (Photo 866) so a burly sailor would have found it quite a squeeze!
David

pedroeibar1 · 07-03-2015 9:23am

DavidGD wrote: »

..............Now the Cormorant mast measured 2ft in diameter, which must have made climbing inside it a fairly claustrophobic experience. I have a fairly slim build at 175lb, (Photo 866) so a burly sailor would have found it quite a squeeze!.....

David, That needs to be looked at from the perspective of the era. Vast records exist from WW1, so many studies have been done on size, weight, etc., of the average "Tommy". Average height was about 5 foot 5 inches and weight was about 8 stone or 112 pounds. The Army dropped its minimum height requirement from 5'3" to 5' and there even were Bantam battalions.
I'd guess Trinity Hse / CIL staff would have been a bit bigger, so still tight-ish and definitely claustrophobic though!:)

DavidGD · 08-03-2015 11:25am

The Soviet tank forces in the 1950s and 1960s were rumoured to comb the ranks of recruits for gunners who were less than 5ft tall and preferably with a right arm shorter than the left, so cramped and awkward was the T54 tank! Perhaps the lightships only accepted skinny lamp-lighters. Or perhaps as you say they were all skinny!! : )

DavidGD · 13-03-2015 3:41pm

My remarks in the last report about burly seamen struggling to squeeze into the 2ft diameter mast of Cormorant, produced a number of comments from various sources through various channels. The consensus seems to be that people were noticeably smaller a century ago. The evidence quoted by ‘Pedro’ certainly points to there being little problem for the average Victorian sailor.

Looking through my collection of lightship photographs, I can find only three which have two auxiliary masts – one forward and one mizzen. The ill-fated Puffin (Photo 871) is one.

Cormorant, seen here on the Lucifer Shoals station, another (Photo 872).

The third photo (Phot 873) is of an unidentified lightship on the Blackwater station.

Now the first thing to hit me, when I put these two photos next to each other, is how similar they are. Yes the names on the side are different; one has two ball markers on the lantern mast; and those little ‘huts’ near the stern seem to have the doors in different places. But doors apart, these two are identical as far as I can judge. So are both these vessels Cormorant? I think so.

And talking of photos, I am aiming to take a few myself. I have bought myself a drone, a little one (body length 34cms), but it does have a camera (Photo 874) and I can hardly wait to make another trip down to the Medway to take some aerial shots of Simon’s ship. For the first time I will be able to get the whole ship in one photo.

There are plenty of other things to photograph down there, including the unfortunate Ena which sadly has again fail to rise with the incoming tide (Photo 875).
David

DavidGD · 20-03-2015 6:34pm

Rather a dearth of items this time. I am waiting for a hi-res scan of Guillemot on the Daunt station, which I hope will show the Commissioners’ inspectors actually inside the lowered lantern in 1905. It’s one David Ryan and I found during my visit to Dublin in January, but the National Library folk are having difficulty finding it again – probably due to my poor note-taking. But they are doing their best.
I did read somewhere that the day-markers on the lantern or mizzen masts were unique to lightship stations, but unless I am missing something, this is not so. There are differences for sure (Photo 881), Barrels has a very appropriately shaped marker, but many go for a simple ball – or are they simple? The photographs from that era are not all that clear, but I suppose there may be noticeable differences (they would have to be noticeable from a distance) that I cannot discern in the photos. This is a pity as it would be an aid to identification – not of the actual vessel perhaps, but of the station being served, which is a step along the way. For instance, ignoring the vessels with a single ball marker, we could probably be confident that the lightship supporting the Dublin Bay regatta is from Arklow station. (Photo 882)
Similarly, the left hand vessel in Kingston Harbour in 1907, (Photo 883) was from Blackwater station; the middle one is anybody’s guess); and the one on the right is from Coningbeg station (actually I cheat – there is only one ball but the name is visible on the side!).
Come on all you nautical types, were the single round balls different?
Thanks to NLI, CIL and the Dublin Maritime Museum for the photos.

David

pedroeibar1 · 21-03-2015 12:36am

Here is one I've posted before - the "new" Kish Light being towed out to station, with two CIL vessels in the background. I think the gaffers in your 882.jpg might be Dublin Bay 21's.

DavidGD · 27-03-2015 6:01pm

Thanks for that Pedro.
Those very helpful people in the National Library of Ireland finally managed to interpret my clues and find the photograph I was after – Guillemot on Daunt station in 1905 (Photo 991).

As the elegantly scripted caption indicates, the visiting Commissioners from CIL are actually in the lantern, doing their inspection. This gives the clearest impression I have yet seen of the size of the lantern and the internal lamps (Photo 992).

There are two figures on the left and one on the right. The reflectors of the lamps have obviously been highly polished – as I am certain they always were and not just for the inspection visit. Taken along with the view I published back in January, of a portly Commissioner climbing into the lantern (Photo 993), I now have a much better feeling for the scale of that 2-ton monster. Hauling it up the mast (by muscle power in the early days) must have been quite a feat – even without the Commissioners in there!

Back to the boat and Simon. He is getting serious with the stern deck. The wall-papering business is going through a busy phase, so decking is not high priority. Still he has had time to start cutting and fitting (Photo 994), but not screwing down, sanding or varnishing!
The old photos are © CIL and courtesy NLI.
David

DavidGD · 04-04-2015 9:22pm

In a few weeks Simon will have owned the ship for two years. Doesn’t time fly when you are enjoying yourself? After his first night aboard (29 June 2013) he reported “Awesome, spent last night on board and yesterday and today clearing the decks for the welder. So peaceful down here, I love it! BBQ last night and fed the swans the scraps, woke up to blue skies and the clang of lines on masts not sirens and traffic”. (Photo 901)
One of the (many) jobs that will have to be tackled when he does have more time is painting the hull. He recently spotted the owner of a neighbouring boat taking advantage of the tide being out to paint his hull (Photo 902). A facial mud-pack is one thing, but everything below the waist is a bit much I think! Simon is determined to find a better way!
This story is running on my Blog and three appropriate web-sites, including this one. A total of around 900 people view the posts each week and the overall figure has now passed 60,000. Those of you who have followed from the start (or gone back to the beginning and caught up) will know that there have been highs, lows and plateaus (plateaux?), both in the renovation and the historical research. Patience has certainly been a virtue in both areas! At the moment both areas are in a plateau phase – Simon being inundated with wall-papering projects (he is happy about that of course) and I am searching for new avenues to explore, including those ‘inaccessible’ CIL records lurking somewhere in Dublin.
In 1878 the Cormorant cost £7,500 which in today’s money amounts to over £600,000 calculated on purchasing power. That is roughly the cost of two Rolls-Royce Phantom cars! I still have not yet discovered anything about the Victoria Shipbuilding Co., West Passage, Cork. Every source I have found identifies this company as the builder of Cormorant in 1878, but I cannot trace it. There was a great deal of shipbuilding around West Passage and there certainly was a Victoria Dock (later the Royal Victoria Dock), built by H&W Brown (Photo 903), but the only company I can find operating here in the 1860/70 period was the Passage Docks Shipbuilding Company. However, according to the Heritage Boat Association, the yard(s) weathered a general slump in ship-building in the 1870/80 period and changed hands a couple of times, so the name may well have changed as well. I do believe Cormorant was built in the Victoria Dockyard, but by whom? Maybe someone over in Cork can find out the answer for me…..
David

DavidGD · 12-04-2015 10:10pm

Being one of ‘the older generation’, I was brought up to appreciate that, when things are tight, you must concentrate on the essentials. I obviously did not spend enough time instilling such philosophies in my sons – certainly not Simon. His trouble is that he cannot resist a bargain and probably gets that from his mother. You know the saying “A woman will spend £1 on something she does not need worth £2, while a man will spend £2 on something he needs worth £1”. Anyway, Simon’s recent acquisitions illustrate a peculiar sense of what the essentials of his ship restoration are at this point in time.

THE KENNEL
He does have a dog – Molly – and a suitably sized kennel on deck is probably a ‘nice to have’, but suitably sized it is not and essential it certainly isn’t. It does have one redeeming feature – it was free!

THE PIANO
Yes it is one of those items that every lightship should have, although I think he should have waited until he has somewhere to put it. Downstairs, sorry below deck, will not be habitable for another year or so, even if he has worked out a way of getting the piano down the spiral staircase, as well as how to transport it along the walkway. He has no musical ability either!

I rest my case.
David

DavidGD · 17-04-2015 1:03pm

Speaking of pianos …… it has been gently suggested that perhaps the wardroom might be a good home for the piano Simon has acquired. However the Captain is normally excluded from the wardroom, except by invitation. (In the Army we called them anterooms and it would be a foolhardy officer who told the CO that he was not welcome!) Even if the protocol could be ignored, there is the problem of practicality. The piano must weigh over 300lb and is not the handiest shape. Readers may remember the difficulties with the deck tiling (Photo 911). Getting the piano along that walkway would be quite a feat, even for the most experienced (and physically strong) removers. Then there is the gangway. Again readers may remember its size and inclination (Photo 912).
Twice a day it is horizontal but with a large step down onto the deck; at high tide that step is impossibly large; so low tide probably offers the best conditions – downhill slope and a small step. The temptation will be to remove and discard the heavy iron frame which houses the strings and make some sort of cupboard of the instrument!
Molly the dog seems to have taken to her new quarters without any persuasion or inducement (Photo 913). Its position at the foot of the gangway makes it ideal for a guard post, although Molly’s qualifications in this area are not proven. Not a good spot to be if pianos come tumbling down the gangway!
What has all this got to do with the history or the renovation of the lightship? Not a lot. Progress has not been made on either front I regret to admit. I have heard nothing about the Victoria Shipbuilding Company, West Passage, so either I do not have any readers in the Cork area, or the Company never existed – which I suspect is the truth. Where are the Irish historians when you need them?
David

zagmund · 17-04-2015 1:27pm

DavidGD wrote: »

I have heard nothing about the Victoria Shipbuilding Company, West Passage, so either I do not have any readers in the Cork area, or the Company never existed – which I suspect is the truth. Where are the Irish historians when you need them?
David

Can you provide more detail to the original reference to the Victoria Shipbuilding Company? There *might* be something in the context of the document that gives further pointers.

z

DavidGD · 17-04-2015 3:09pm

Hi Zag
Most references merely state that Cormorant was built by the Victoria Shipbuilding Company, Passge West. Some add dimensions and construction details (teak cladding over iron frame). Many are so similar that one suspects they all used the same original (erroneous?) information.

The Heritage Boat Association go into detail about the 'Passage Dock Company', as follows:-
"By the 1860s the Docks were running at their peak, with over 250 ships discharging freight there in one year. It weathered a general slump in ship-building ten years later and changed hands a couple of times. The yard kept busy with boat building and repairs on various types of vessels big and small, commercial and recreational from all over the world. The Cormorant light-ship was built here in 1878 with an iron frame overlaid with teak (known today as Lady December and moored in Kent) and in 1882 the yard’s first of many Iron vessels, the Dingadee, was built for the Australian Steam Navigation Company".

I have seen references to 'The Passage Docks Shipbuilding Company'.

Another source reports that William Brown started building a dock at Passage. In 1849, the Browns were given official permission to name their concern the Royal Victoria Dockyard. The dry dock itself was called the Victoria Dry Dock.
In 1872, the Royal Victoria Dockyard was purchased by a syndicate who formed the Cork Harbour Docks and Warehouse Company. The initial years of this company were highly successful and the dockyard staff exceeded 700 workers.
Although the company concentrated on repair work, a number of small vessels were built in the early 1870s. Towards the end 1870s, a shipping depression affected Passage and work became scarce. To keep the yard going, the company purchased a number of old or damaged timber ships with a view to their conditioning and resale. This did not work out as, just at this time, timber ships had become virtually valueless on the open market. The Docks Company lost money in successive years and in 1881, the property was purchased by Sir John Arnott for £31,500. By this time Cormorant had been built and was in service.

It would seem from this that Cormorant was built in the Royal Victoria Dockyard by the Cork Harbour Docks and Warehouse Company.

Just to confuse things, there is a report of 'Cormorant' being built by the Cork Shipbuilding Company, Passage West in 1853, but this Cormorant was an iron screw steamer of 743 tons. And how about the Queenstown Dry Docks, Shipbuilding and Engineering Company who were apparently based at the Royal Victoria Dockyard?

David

bladebrew · 18-04-2015 10:49pm

Hi David,

I live fairly near to Passage West, I am not sure how much help I can be to you though! There is still a dock there today but it is very small, there are also a few apartment blocks built on what I think may have been dock/shipbuilding areas back in the 1800s,
There is a small museum down in Cobh but as the Titanic picked up passengers here it is basically only covering the Titanic and Lusitania,
As you may know already Cobh was called Queenstown, there is still a ship repair yard here just outside Cobh in an area called Rushbrooke, this may have been where the Queenstown name came into it, it is across from Monkstown which is the next town from Passage West.

DavidGD · 19-04-2015 11:43am

Thanks for that Bladebrew. I wonder if local authority archives might have some information, particularly in Cork itself.
Using an 1897 map, I have marked the docks that existed then on today's Google version. Across the road from your Health Centre (Dock St in those days, but Beach Rd now) was the 350ft main dry dock. Although not named on the old map, I believe this to be the Victoria Dock as it is the right size and it has a caisson. The later Albert Dock had a sliding gate, but there is no sign of this on the 1897 map and the two smaller docks to the north of the Victoria are not named, they are too small and they too have a caisson gate. So where is/was the Albert Dock? And the question still remains - was there a Victoria Shipbuilding Company in Passge West?
David

bladebrew · 19-04-2015 11:17pm

Ah right I thought the dockyard area was a lot bigger back in the 1800s, the part marked as mud slip I assumed that was an old dry dock just because of the shape,
I was thinking of museums as a source of more information but as you mention the Council may have more records, I'm not sure where to begin now but I will try look into it more next week!

DavidGD · 20-04-2015 9:51am

Good on yer blue - as they say down in Aussieland.
The principle question is whether there was a Victoria Shipbuilding Company in the 1870s, but an interesting sideline would be where was the Albert Dock?
David

DavidGD · 24-04-2015 7:45am

Using an 1897 map, I have marked the docks that existed then, on today's Google version. (Photo 931) Across the road from the Health Centre on Beach Road (Dock St in those days) was the 350ft main dry dock. Although not named on the old map, I believe this to be the Victoria Dock as it is the right size and it has a caisson. The later Albert Dock had a sliding gate, but there is no sign of this dock on the 1897 map and the two smaller docks to the north of the Victoria are not named, they are too small and they too have a caisson gate. So where is/was the Albert Dock? And the question still remains - was there a Victoria Shipbuilding Company in Passage West?
Simon was told that Cormorant is one of only three surviving ‘composite’ ships (ships with teak cladding on iron frames). He knew one of these is the Cutty Sark, but did not know the third. According to National Historic Ships UK, the three are Cutty Sark, The City of Adelaide (another clipper) and HMS Gannet (a sloop). Cutty Sark is permanently ‘docked’ at Greenwich; Adelaide has recently gone to Australia to be restored; and Gannet has been restored and is in Chatham. In truth these three have actually been described as ‘the only three surviving ocean-going composite ships’ and so Cormorant would not be included – although she did spend most of her working life out on the ‘ocean’ (well the Irish Sea anyway). Regular readers may remember my discovery of a Trinity House document which queried whether Cormorant, not being used in navigation, could rightly be registered as a ship. Invoking the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 would classify Cormorant as a lighthouse, not as a ship. If so, she has to be the only composite lighthouse in existence!
I was wrong to say that Simon has not had time to do any work on the ship. He has started on the crumbling stern gunwale. The English oak has succumbed to age (and misuse?) in several places and has been patched (in several places) with concrete. So Simon has continued this cheap and cheerful method – erecting temporary shuttering on the outside of the hull and pouring concrete into the gaps (Photo 932). Unlike his predecessors, he has had the foresight to insert bolts into the concrete in order to fix whatever rails or seating he decides to install later (Photo 933)
What spurred him on to do such repairs I can only guess, but the sight of yet another vessel sunk at her moorings may have had something to do with it. You will remember the sad photo of Ena lying under a high tide recently. Well another one has done the same – right next to Simon’s boat (Photo 934). A sad sight and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. I don’t know what the problem is, or where, but she looks a nice little craft, when you can see her! (Photo 935) What a sad sight and nobody seems to care.
David

bladebrew · 24-04-2015 3:34pm

I can see how you can hit a brick wall with research on the ship!
I think you may be correct that Victoria shipbuilding company was a mistake as the docks were called Victoria dock,
This website has good information,
http://www.passagewestmonkstown.ie/royal-victoria-dockyard.asp

There are Archives in Cork, I am not sure where to begin looking for information though! They list most of their collections online as far as I can see,
http://www.corkarchives.ie

The Albert dock is mentioned as the "Albert twin dock" in this book, which appears to make sense as it seems to be 2 docks right beside each other above the larger Victoria dock, i know the size is off but it also mentions on the Passage west website that the Albert dock was extended into the river in 1919,
http://www.corkpastandpresent.ie/history/corkitstradecommerce/corkpresent/Pages_158_188.pdf
At the bottom of page 166, it mentions Queen Victoria opened the docks in 1832 but every other reference to this refers to her first visit in 1849

DavidGD · 24-04-2015 7:30pm

You are doing well Bladebrew!
I have visited the Passage West/Monkstown website, but did not read far enough (I lost interest at the turn of the century). Now I have revisited thanks to your prompting, I see that the Albert Dock was indeed extended, but only to 98m (320ft) and that was in 1919. However, the prize item was the statement that the Albert Dock was filled in in 1983. No wonder there is no trace on the Google view. I wonder when the Victoria Dock and those other two were filled.
Anyway, the Cork Archives are new to me. I don't find their website very helpful (I will try again tomorrow), but I will get in touch with the Archivist and see if he/she can guide us to the right collection(s).
David

bladebrew · 24-04-2015 11:16pm

It's a bit of a maze of information! I had read on the Passage west website that the Victoria Dock is still there! But it seems to be out of date information, I moved to Cork 10 years ago for college so I don't have any local knowledge before that,
The part of the Quay that seemed to have the Victoria dock is used for loading scrap metal,

That would be great if they could point to the right area, I could visit it then to have a look, I agree the website is a bit dodgy, they only seem to have bits of the collections listed,
Maybe a companies register could show if the Victoria shipbuilding company existed back then?

It seems the docks in Passage west and Rushbrooke were merged or sold to the same person, in the book I linked to above there is an ad for the dry docks with all of them listed together,
It has Oliver Piper as manager which was in the early 1900s.

DavidGD · 25-04-2015 3:17pm

I suppose those 'twin' docks could be the Albert, although I had assumed that twin meant it was just like the Victoria. I suppose there is just enough room to extend them to about 270ft (to the sea). But why does the 1897 map show them having a caisson, when the Albert had a sliding gate?
Anyway I have e-mailed both the Cork archivist and the Passage West/ Monkstown people asking for information and/or advice on where to look.
When Cormorant was built, the Victoria Dockyard was owned by the Cork Harbour Docks and Warehouse Company, so were they the builders or did they sub-contract?
David

DavidGD · 03-05-2015 9:12pm

It seems I was a little hasty in condemning those responsible for the drowning boat next door to Simon. Something in the way of repair has obviously been done, as she is going up and down with the tide again (Photo 941). Whatever the problem is/was, I hope it is nothing too serious because I think, with a lick of paint she could look very nice. Of course I have not looked inside!!

Back to Simon’s boat, the reasonable weather, the insulated deck and a radiator down below has dried out down there very well. It is still all very rusty and discoloured, but at least there are not drips from every projection (Photo 942).

The next step is to remove as much of the rust as possible/practicable. A good chip and scrape would get rid of the really loose stuff, but would take quite a time - at a rough estimate there is an area of about 5,000 sq ft to clean, a lot of which is not flat, easy surface (Photo 943).
Once the loose stuff is off, the choice will be either to cover what is left by coating all the ironwork with either rust-proof paint and/or spray-on insulating foam, or to remove a lot more by some form of blasting, then cover it all with paint and/or foam.
In my day blasting with grit was the only answer and what a messy business it was when not contained in a booth. I have been researching dry ice blasting – three expressions of interest already (even though it’s a Bank Holiday) and one of the responses came from a chap who lived in Ireland, worked in the marine industry and knows several of the old lightships over there. Now that would be appropriate wouldn’t it? However, I have a feeling it is going to be rather expensive. Perhaps we could get a grant from an organisation with nautical/historical preservation objectives? It is a big job, as you can see from Photo 944, which shows about one third of the below deck area!
David

DavidGD · 08-05-2015 7:19pm

I think it safe to say that Cormorant was not built by ‘The Victoria Shipbuilding Company’. With the help of the Cork City and County Archives I have found Francis Guy’s ‘County and City of Cork Directory 1876-1876’ (Photo 951). This records that the company running the Victoria Dockyard at the time was the ‘Cork Harbour Docks and Warehouses Company’. Their entry in the Directory shows their address as Victoria Docks, Passage West (Photo 952).

The Directory has no record of any Victoria Shipbuilding Company or any Passage West Shipbuilding Company (probably confusion with the Passage West Docks Company). The Cork Archivist reminded me that another Cormorant was said to have been built in 1855, for the Cork Steamship Company. This was found among the records of the Cork Steam Packet Co Ltd, a successor company. It was certainly not a lightship and apparently it was broken up in 1894.

Another historical question, on which I am reasonably confident in pronouncing, is the location of the dry docks where Cormorant was built. They are filled in now of course but back in the late 1880s I reckon they were where I suggested last month (Photo 953). I wish I could find a detailed map of the area dated around 1880 just to confirm that, but I have had no luck in finding one yet.
David

PS: If Alex Coulter reads this, please get in touch. My computer crashed earlier this year and I lost all my e-mail addresses!

roundymac · 14-05-2015 3:23pm

bladebrew wrote: »

It's a bit of a maze of information! I had read on the Passage west website that the Victoria Dock is still there! But it seems to be out of date information, I moved to Cork 10 years ago for college so I don't have any local knowledge before that,
The part of the Quay that seemed to have the Victoria dock is used for loading scrap metal,

That would be great if they could point to the right area, I could visit it then to have a look, I agree the website is a bit dodgy, they only seem to have bits of the collections listed,
Maybe a companies register could show if the Victoria shipbuilding company existed back then?

It seems the docks in Passage west and Rushbrooke were merged or sold to the same person, in the book I linked to above there is an ad for the dry docks with all of them listed together,
It has Oliver Piper as manager which was in the early 1900s.

These docks were operated by Haulbowline Industries. There was a name plate for the Docks on the boundry wall, I hope to down there and see if it is still there, I'll take a picture and post if I can.

DavidGD · 14-05-2015 5:18pm

Do you mean this one.....?

roundymac · 14-05-2015 6:47pm

DavidGD wrote: »

Do you mean this one.....?

Thanks, you saved me a trip.:)

DavidGD · 15-05-2015 4:55pm

Methinks there is confusion about the location of the Victoria Dock. Google Earth reveals a dock-shaped depression of about the right dimensions sitting parallel to Dock Street and Beach Road (Photo 961).
However, having done a careful comparison with my 1897 map and with a hand-drawn map of the docks contained in Colman O’Mahony’s book “The Maritime Gateway to Cork: A History of the Outports of Passage West and Monkstown, 1754-1942” (thanks to Marcia D’Alton of Cork City Council for alerting me to this book), I am sure that the Victoria Dock was not parallel to those roads and was shorter than that depression would indicate (Photo 962). The dots indicate the 1897 shoreline.
Another very interesting photograph has surfaced (where would we be without the Internet and Google?) showing the Victoria dry dock and the Albert dry dock (Photo 963). There is no date on the photograph, but as the Albert dock is no longer a twin dock and it extends right into the river, I assume the date would be after 1919 when it was remodelled and before 1983 when it was filled in!
To add confusion to an already muddled picture about ownership, ‘Roundymac’ informs us that the dockyard was run by Haulbowline Industries, but doesn’t say when (sounds a bit modern to me) and that there is a company plaque attached to the wall outside the dockyard. On the latter point he is correct, there is a plaque there signifying that the place was run by the ‘Queenstown Dry Docks Shipbuilding and Engineering Co Limited” and states that it was established in 1832 (Photo 964). This is misleading as that company was not formed until the end of the 19th century, reformed in 1924 and is still in existence, although I have not yet found a contact address to ask them about their history. I think the ‘established 1832’ refers to the dockyard itself.
I hope to report on refurbishment progress next time, now that the weather has improved.
David

DavidGD · 22-05-2015 9:59am

Having been told that the Victoria dock was still there, I spent some time proving that what appeared to be the remains of a dock was not the Victoria. Prompted by a reader to look more closely, I found that the ‘remains’ were in fact an optical illusion created by the shadow of the boundary fence of the dockyard. Using Google ‘Streetview’ it is possible to look into the yard through a wide entrance gate and see that there is no dock-shaped depression in the ground (Photo 971).
So I have proved that an optical illusion has no bearing on the location of the Victoria dock! This just goes to show that, if you are expecting to see something, it is highly likely that you will. However, the effort was not wasted as I believe I have now positioned the Victoria and the Albert dry docks as accurately as it is possible to do so.
Meanwhile, back on the ship, Simon has made excellent use of a slack week in the wallpapering business to progress things. He used his skills on behalf of himself for a change and hung some very smart wallpaper in the salon/wardroom (Photo 972). The photo does not do it justice; the wallpaper has a linen-like texture. At the moment the room is actually the bedsit and it will be many a month before the below-deck rooms are ready and his bed can go down there!
He has also had time to fix the stern decking in place and give it a good day’s sanding (Photo 973). When the moth-eaten sections of the bulwark are reinstated (with cement), he intends to build a curved seating structure around the stern. Please excuse my amateur PhotoShopping (and the colour of the seat cushions!) but I have done my best (Photo 974)
Going one step further (several steps in fact), Simon would like to make a small ‘gateway’ right in the centre there and have his clinker boat hanging off the stern on davits – with matching cushions of course! At the moment he is unable to find and suitable davits. Long term followers may remember that when Cormorant became Lady Dixon, part of the transformation was a ‘boat platform’ added to the stern. So perhaps he can indulge his whim on historical grounds!
Meanwhile, the other member of the crew shows little enthusiasm for the work (Photo 975).
David

DavidGD · 29-05-2015 12:02pm

A few historical items found along the way. The first is an advertisement for a revolving ‘lanthorn’ (Photo 981). Yes I wondered at this, but it is the archaic version of ‘lantern’. The translucent sides of early lanterns were made of very thin horn, not glass, and hence ‘lanthorn’. Anyway, a Captain H.G. Pearce invented this device “to prevent those serious and Melancholy Accidents which so frequently occur from Vessels running foul of each other at Night”.
Full marks for initiative but it would rely on all Masters knowing the colour codes and understanding (as I suppose they must) the nautical terms which puzzle me – ‘Larbourd’, ‘keep her Luff’, ‘Upon a wind’ etc. I don’t suppose this idea was ever taken up. Why buy an expensive bit of kit if you cannot guarantee everyone else is going to have the same?
The second historical item is a set of instructions to help you operate a ‘Manual Fog Signal Apparatus’ should you ever come across one (Photo 982). These instructions were issued by Trinity House in 1895. My copy is rather tatty and so I have re-typed the instructions. They are, in my eyes at least, a bit pedantic, but I suppose there was little chance of a help-line phone call, or a home visit when things went wrong! They had to cover every eventuality.
The last sentence of the first paragraph conjures up a sense of mounting panic as the horn is sounded more and more frequently until it is emitting a continuous scream. Better that than a collision I suppose!

Coming more up to date (1960s), I found this short item about pirate radio stations –

The Suppression of the broadcasts by stations outside national territories. - National legislation and European Agreement. 1966

Great Britain OK has a radius of action covering the French and British coasts. It emits a wavelength already in use by stations in Stockholm, Spain and the Soviet Union. The station is installed on a vessel, the 'Lady Dixon', off the coast in the mouth of the River Thames.

In fact Great Britain OK (GBOK) never did get to the proposed mooring ‘off the coast in the mouth of the River Thames’ and indeed never did broadcast. It is believed that in July 1962 the ship, while in Sheerness awaiting a tow out to her station, was raided by the Post Office and the radio equipment confiscated. British youth, or at least those in SE England, had to wait for Radio Caroline to make it in 1964.
Meanwhile, back on the ship …. Simon has completed the first stage of the repairs to the stern gunwale. The last section on the starboard side was the worst and did look pretty grim (Photo 983).
Five bags of sand and two of cement later and the whole area looks much better (Photo 984). To finish off, the shuttering has to come off and all the repaired areas need sealing and painting. Then he will have to find a good joiner to design, make and fit the bench seating he has in mind. The seats will be weather-proof lockers in which to store cushions etc., and, as I reported before, there will be a door in the centre to give access to the clinker boat he plans to have hanging out there – if he can find some davits! My ‘artist’s impression’ shows the idea (Photo 985).
David

The fate of Irish Lightships

Comments