Inland Water Transport - Tug Name Query

[StevePal]

Hello

 

I have found that the crew of a tug have been commemorated on Basra Memorial, but in fact died off Dieppe and as such CWGC have amended their database to include the names on Brookwood 1914-1918 Memorial.
They were on "W.D. Tug H.S. 69" - can some please tell me what the W.D. and H.S. means? Also, does anyone have a photo I could use in a book of the tug or one like it.
The crew were:

Sapper Stanley Kingdon, Royal Engineers, Inland Water Transport, Service No 122479

Sapper James Plunkett, Royal Engineers, Inland Water Transport, Service No 271891

Lance Corporal William Robert Fox, Royal Engineers, Inland Water Transport, Service No 258885

Sapper John Joseph Townsend, Royal Engineers, Inland Water Transport, Service No 264963

Sapper William Wood, Royal Engineers, Inland Water Transport, Service No 265305

Sapper George Paice, Royal Engineers, Inland Water Transport, Service No 232533

[Matlock1418]

13 minutes ago, StevePal said:

"W.D. Tug H.S. 69" - can some please tell me what the W.D. and H.S. means?

Welcome to GWF

Not really my field but I might hazard:

WD = War Department

HS = Harbour Service or Harbour Support

??

M

 

 

[MerchantOldSalt]

Stevepal

Have you read Sapper George Paice's Service record which contains most, if not all, of the enquiry into the loss of HS69 off Dieppe after this tug hit a mine and apparently sank.

I ask because you don't mention the 6 survivors, A/SM Ernest Pocock who was I/C HS69 and Sappers Gofton, Blakley, Phillips, Hedgler, and McCabe.

HS69 is a matter of some conjecture.  Various sources state she was the tug PENGUIN built in Falmouth in 1896 and requisitioned by the War Office in 1917, but this tug was then transferred to the Admiralty in 1920, renamed ACOR and sold onto United Towing of Hull so clearly not the tug sunk off Dieppe.  The probability is that another tug was given the name HS 69 after the loss of the original.

The IWT section of the Royal Engineers was responsible for many different craft both seagoing and for river and canal work.  They were all given pennant numbers for identification purposes, some of the letters proceeding the numbers made sense as an abbreviation of their task, others did not.  An AC Barge was for Across Channel use, HT a Harbour and canal Tug, PD a Port Discharge Barge, a RB a Refrigerated Barge, you get the idea. Unfortunately it seems that "As" referred to Canal/River tugs and other self propelled vessels and "HS" referred to twin or single screw sea going tugs, though reading through many Service Records, the opinion of some of their seagoing abilities was called into question, so it is uncertain what As & HS actually meant.

The HS69 was engaged on coastal and middle trade delivery of barges from the builders' at various shipyards around the UK Coast and also the movement of towed barges from UK ports to the various theatres of war.  Many of these tugs were involved in the towage of barges to the Mediterranean, Malta, Salonika, Egypt and Mesopotamia via the Suez Canal.  this was generally done on a relay service, each set of tugs being responsible for a part of the voyage, for instance, Fowey to Lisbon, Lisbon to Gibraltar, Gibraltar to Malta and so on.  Some of the tugs went all the way as the tugs themselves were required out in the middle east.  I suspect the reason the crew of HS69 appear on the Basrah Memorial is that they were on passage to Mesopotamia when sunk, but that is purely guesswork.

Just out of interest tugs HS 3 & 4 both taken up from trade and towing refrigerated barges to Mesopotamia were captured and sunk by German submarines, their Royal Engineer crews, Merchant Seamen in civilian life, were taken prisoner, probably the only Royal Engineers to be captured at sea!

The HS tugs numbered over 100 and many were taken up from trade and renamed by the War Office, later returning to their owners post war.  The WO also had a tug designed to their own specification and many of them were built at yards all over the UK and went on to commercial use after the War. Pictures attached. Some were single screw some twin screw.

Regrettably, I do not know if HS69 was taken up from trade or purpose built and do not have a photo so though most tugs looked very similar I can't say exactly what she looked like.  The attached pictures are of a WD designed tug HS 21 and plans of a twin screw tug to WO design. Let's hope somebody else knows

Tony

 

 

 

 

 

[StevePal]

Hi Tony

Thank you for comprehensive reply.

I did read rhe service record and that is when I found out they died 30km from Dieppe and as a result CWGC agreed to add the crew to Brookwood.

The records do not state where the tug was going, so could have been on its way to the far east.

I have not looked at the survivors, but will do a bit more as I over looked them.

 

 

Matlock, thank you

[KizmeRD]

One of the most common tasks for the IWT tugs was to transport supply barges from Richborough (Sandwich, Kent) over to Dieppe. That’s most likely what HS.69 was doing when she struck a mine. Did the tug actually sink? Was she subsequently salvaged and returned to service? (transferred to Admiralty and renamed ACOR).

MB

[MerchantOldSalt]

10 hours ago, KizmeRD said:

 That’s most likely what HS.69 was doing when she struck a mine. Did the tug actually sink? Was she subsequently salvaged and returned to service? (transferred to Admiralty and renamed ACOR).

How do you come to that conclusion?  HS tugs were used far and wide not just from Richborough.  According to Pocock's Service Record the tug was on passage from Dover to Le Havre her reason for calling into Dieppe is not recorded but she left at 0600 and struck a mine which exploded under the engine room, the tug sank within 30 to 40 seconds according to the survivor reports. HS69 was about 2 - 3 miles off St Valery-en-Caux several miles west of Dieppe. I do not know if the tug was salvaged but can imagine that after a mine exploded under the engine room it would be a difficult operation and unjustifiable in the circumstances.

There are quite comprehensive records at Kew for all the IWT vessels operating from Richborough and though there are 32 HS Tugs HS69 is not one of them. 

The question remains what were the names of the deceased crew doing on the Basra Memorial?

[KizmeRD]

31 minutes ago, MerchantOldSalt said:

How do you come to that conclusion?  HS tugs were used far and wide not just from Richborough.

It wasn’t a conclusion, just a suggestion that sounded more feasible to me than the notion that the tug was off on a voyage to the Far East.

In any case, whether it was Richborough to Dieppe, or Dover to Le Harve, the fact is that a cross-channel supply trip was involved. And since Dittmar & Colledge were under the impression that HS.69 was one of the tugs that were subsequently transferred to the Navy, it seemed reasonable for me to ask the question whether she might perhaps have been repaired and returned to service.

Granted my post wasn’t a throughly researched and well considered response, but it’s also a lot more sensible than CWGC thinking that the English Channel must be somewhere near Mesopotamia (IWT weren’t just involved in that theatre).

MB

Edited 18 January , 2023 by KizmeRD

[Sniper]

Tony,

Really nice to see some information on the IWT branch.

There seems to be very little in the public domain. I don’t mean Kew. I’m sure there’s plenty of relevant stuff there, but I, for one, am no longer able to get there.

Anything more that you feel able to share? I’m sure there are many on this site who would welcome any additional knowledge on the subject.

[charlie962]

14 hours ago, MerchantOldSalt said:

The probability is that another tug was given the name HS 69 after the loss of the original.

HS69 is still being quoted in newspapers Feb 1919. Courtesy Findmypast East Kent Times 12/2/19.

[KizmeRD]

Intriguing!, so if not sunk by mine, and if not one of the 50 HS tugs transferred to the Admiralty, then what?
It suggests to me that there was perhaps a second wartime HS.69.

I notice that the article is dated February, 1919 - even after the Armistice the IWT Port of Richborough was still busy handling war salvage.  Recovered metals were stored, sorted and sent off for recycling. All of that work carried out by female labour.

MB

 

[charlie962]

And HS.69 was still using RE personnel.

[KizmeRD]

Could it be that there was in fact a hospital ship (paddle) HS.69 in use (or intended for use) by the IWT in Mesopotamia?
(as yet unsubstantiated).

That might offer one explanation.

MB

[charlie962]

In Mespot I thought HS was Hospital Sternwheeler. There weren't that many in theatre. 

Edit..looking at IWT in Mespot by LtCol Hall doesn't throw up anything obvious, although numerous vessels were lost en route (eg HS 3 and HS4 as already mentioned above).

Edited 18 January , 2023 by charlie962

[MerchantOldSalt]

5 hours ago, Sniper said:

Really nice to see some information on the IWT branch

Thanks for that Sniper, it is an interesting but huge topic.

4 hours ago, charlie962 said:

HS69 is still being quoted in newspapers Feb 1919. Courtesy Findmypast East Kent Times 12/2/19.

 

That's well found Charlie962, interesting article.  The tug crews are rampaging round Ramsgate because many, though not all, of the HS tugs were too deep drafted to get up the River Stour to the New Quay and other berths at Richborough except at either side of high water, so these tugs were based at Ramsgate and picked up their barges in Pegwell Bay brought down from Richborough by "As" river tugs.

There is no doubt that tug HS 69 sank off St Valery-en-Caux as detailed in the enquiry which can be found in Paice's Service Record.  Whether it towed a barge to Dieppe I don't know but its onward passage to Le Havre was without a tow as the presence of a barge floating around after the tug sank would undoubtedly have been mentioned in the enquiry. I know that the 1896 tug PENGUIN, later ACOR, was requisitioned in 1917 so believe that there was a second HS 69 which carried on into Admiralty use in 1920 this, if true, would resolve the problem.

3 hours ago, charlie962 said:

And HS.69 was still using RE personnel.

According to Hansard:

 “From the 1st March the train ferries, tugs and wharves at Richborough will be managed and operated as a civilian establishment by the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company's managing committee. The cost of working will be repaid to the managing committee by the War Office without profit to the committee.”  Captain Guest – Hansard 24 Feb 1919

So in theory the Royal Engineers employed to operate the port and the many vessels became civilians overnight. This didn’t quite turn out as required as de-mobbing thousands of men took longer than expected, but the Tug and Barge crews signed Board of Trade Articles on 31 May 1919, a collective agreement covering all vessels operating from Richborough, except the Train Ferries, these opened their own articles on 22 May 1919 for TF3 and 2 June for TF2.  TF1 was already laid up and out of use with a bent tail shaft. The Tug HS 69 never appeared on the collective agreement.

So from the dates mentioned all crews became Merchant Seamen and civilians.  The ex RE personnel either continued their work from Richborough or went off to other jobs elsewhere. The South Eastern & Chatham Railway Co. were requested by the War Office to employ as many ex servicemen as they could at Richborough whilst the recovery of salvage, railway wagons etc. continued into Richborough.  The Port and its accepts were put up for sale in Dec 1919 but continued to operate until 5 Feb 1921 when it was announced the Port and ships were no longer required.  All tugs and barges were sold to Crichton Thompson for £620,000 over a period of time.  The Train ferries were kept at Richborough doing odd voyages until eventually sold in 1923.

3 hours ago, charlie962 said:

In Mespot I thought HS was Hospital Sternwheeler. There weren't that many in theatre. 

Just out of interest I attach a list of IWT vessel  identifying letters that I have come across over a long period from various sources especially Service Records.  If anybody has any corrections or additions please let me know.

One of the most interesting aspects of Richborough  Military  Transportation Depot is its demise and eventual sale, the legal wranglings went on for years amidst an outcry from the general public as to the astronomical cost of Richborough and its operations, justified in wartime maybe and there is no doubt these operations were highly successful but not when the tax payer becomes involved and people want their land back. 

Tony

 

 

[Matlock1418]

On 18/01/2023 at 17:55, MerchantOldSalt said:

Just out of interest I attach a list of IWT vessel  identifying letters that I have come across over a long period from various sources especially Service Records.  If anybody has any corrections or additions please let me know. ...

Puzzled and wondering more about HS, as in HS 69.

Given so many other identifying letters relate to function, and based on a more knowledgeable person's thoughts above, perhaps ...

HS = Harbour & Sea-going Tugs [Twin & Single screw I might presume] i.e. dual-purposed

Rather assuming that Harbour Steam Tugs has already been ruled out.

???

M

 

Edited 19 January , 2023 by Matlock1418

[MerchantOldSalt]

17 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

Puzzled and wondering more about HS, as in HS 69.

Given so many other identifying letters relate to function, and based on a more knowledgeable person's thoughts above, perhaps ...

HS = Harbour & Sea-going Tugs [Twin & Single screw I might presume] i.e. dual-purposed

Rather assuming that Harbour Steam Tugs has already been ruled out.

???

M

 

Can't really rule anything out M, as good as an interpretation as any! It is a bit strange that the tugs both, "HS" and "As", don't seem to have a meaningful designation, particularly as there were so many of them.  This subject has been chewed over on other maritime and tug forums for many years without conclusion, even P N Thomas in his excellent book "British Steam Tugs" professes "ignorance of the WD nomenclature."

There is a file at Kew concerning War Department owned vessels pre-war, maybe that has the answer? Will look next time I'm there.

Tony

[StevePal]

On 17/01/2023 at 23:22, KizmeRD said:

One of the most common tasks for the IWT tugs was to transport supply barges from Richborough (Sandwich, Kent) over to Dieppe. That’s most likely what HS.69 was doing when she struck a mine. Did the tug actually sink? Was she subsequently salvaged and returned to service? (transferred to Admiralty and renamed ACOR).

MB

MB - A Court of Inquiry was held on the 23rd August 1917 at Dover to investigate the loss. The crew were questioned and reported the tug had left Dieppe harbour at 6am, bound for Le Havre, when an explosion occurred at about 7.30am and caused the vessel to sink rapidly. She was estimated to be 2km north-west of Saint-Valery-en-Caux, some 30km down the coast from Dieppe. Seven survivors, clinging to flotsam and lifebuoys, were rescued after 1½ hours in the water by the French armed trawler Marie Rose. Those who survived told the Court of Inquiry that they believed that the vessel had hit a mine.

Steve

 

---

[1] Soldiers’ Documents, First World War. WO 363. Paice, G. Service Number 232533. The National Archives (UK), Kew, England.

[KizmeRD]

Rather frustratingly we’re not really that much advanced in our knowledge of what HS69 was doing at the time of her loss. Had she just dropped off a barge cargo into Dieppe? Was she intending to pick up a new haul in Le Harve, or perhaps assist with the congestion in the port?  She might even have been re-positioning to Mespot (although that seems less likely). It would be interesting to read the findings of the Court of Enquiry into her loss, but unfortunately I can’t seem to locate that from TNA (Thanks anyway Steve).

As to the ‘HS’ designation, I’ve always associated it with general purpose ‘Harbour Services’ steam screw tugs (but others are welcome to their own opinions). HS tugs were a fairly ubiquitous design built by many shipyards in the UK (being somewhat larger than ordinary harbour berthing tugs). Then there were the very much smaller ‘As’ tugs which were fit for inland canal use only. Even the barges used by the cross-channel barge service were a little different from ordinary canal barges, necessarily having higher freeboards. Many of the IWT barges actually got fabricated on slipways at Richborough. It seems that the  main annoyance with the cross-channel barge deliveries was that they were dependent on prevailing sea state and weather conditions, and were prone to cancellation when high winds were forecast. On the plus side, unlike merchant ships, barge traffic wasn’t too prone to getting torpedoed (as they were too shallow draft).

MB

Edit - just one further thought, it could even be that due to port congestion at Le Harve, HS69 might have been used for transhipping cargo from ocean steamers and delivering it round (in barges) to other smaller ports on the north coast of France. That might explain why Merchant Old Salt couldn’t find her listed as being a Richborough based tug.

Edited 20 January , 2023 by KizmeRD

[Matlock1418]

30 minutes ago, KizmeRD said:

As to the ‘HS’ designation, I’ve always associated it with general purpose ‘Harbour Services’ steam screw tugs (but others are welcome to their own opinions). HS tugs were a fairly ubiquitous design built by many shipyards in the UK (being somewhat larger than ordinary harbour berthing tugs).

Harbour Service was my first suggestion [largely a guess] above.

Though I wonder if a Harbour Service tug would be considered seaworthy for sea-going/Channel duties ?? - hence my later musing. = ???

M

[KizmeRD]

I’m sure that DIWT would have been overjoyed if he could have got his hands on some of the larger ocean-going salvage type tugs for the cross-channel barge service, however these were in limited supply and were essential for use as rescue tugs, going to the assistance of  vessels that had suffered damage by mine or torpedo). Therefore HS tugs, although not perfect, were good enough (as a wartime expediency) - they were just large enough for short-sea routes, provided that the weather wasn’t too unkind. 

Tugs of all varieties and sizes were in such high demand during the war that the government needed to form a ‘Tug  Distribution Committee’ in order to reconcile competing demands from the Admiralty, the War Office, and also civilian operators (trying to keep UK ports open for business).

MB

[StevePal]

3 hours ago, KizmeRD said:

Rather frustratingly we’re not really that much advanced in our knowledge of what HS69 was doing at the time of her loss. Had she just dropped off a barge cargo into Dieppe? Was she intending to pick up a new haul in Le Harve, or perhaps assist with the congestion in the port?  She might even have been re-positioning to Mespot (although that seems less likely). It would be interesting to read the findings of the Court of Enquiry into her loss, but unfortunately I can’t seem to locate that from TNA (Thanks anyway Steve).

As to the ‘HS’ designation, I’ve always associated it with general purpose ‘Harbour Services’ steam screw tugs (but others are welcome to their own opinions). HS tugs were a fairly ubiquitous design built by many shipyards in the UK (being somewhat larger than ordinary harbour berthing tugs). Then there were the very much smaller ‘As’ tugs which were fit for inland canal use only. Even the barges used by the cross-channel barge service were a little different from ordinary canal barges, necessarily having higher freeboards. Many of the IWT barges actually got fabricated on slipways at Richborough. It seems that the  main annoyance with the cross-channel barge deliveries was that they were dependent on prevailing sea state and weather conditions, and were prone to cancellation when high winds were forecast. On the plus side, unlike merchant ships, barge traffic wasn’t too prone to getting torpedoed (as they were too shallow draft).

MB

Edit - just one further thought, it could even be that due to port congestion at Le Harve, HS69 might have been used for transhipping cargo from ocean steamers and delivering it round (in barges) to other smaller ports on the north coast of France. That might explain why Merchant Old Salt couldn’t find her listed as being a Richborough based tug.

Hi, the only piece i have is in Paice's service record which looks to be a partial extrract.

 

[MerchantOldSalt]

There were known to be at least 104 HS Tugs, 32 of which were allocated to Richborough.  The remainder were working out of IWT Depots in Poplar (London), Dover (later closed), Southampton, Plymouth, Fowey, Milford Haven, Glasgow and Hull and other ports.  Abroad, there were IWT tugs based in Lisbon, Gibraltar, Malta, Port said and Basrah covering the relay service of barges to the Med and beyond.  There were probably more depots in other ports but these are certainties I have gleaned from Service Records and Files at Kew.

Some of the tugs were armed carrying RE Seamen Gunners and were used to escort the UK built Paddle Steamers of various varieties to Mesopotamia via Suez. Other river vessels were dismantled after building, shipped out in bits on Merchant Ships, and re-erected in the IWT Shipyards in Basrah.

I have found no primary documentation up to now to say whether HS Tugs were permanently or only temporarily attached to any particular IWT Depot but suspect, as has been alluded to, that they pretty much went where they were needed, although on the relay service to the Med., the same tugs were certainly kept on the same sections of routes as much as possible so that crews got used to local conditions and pilotage.

The continuous requirement for more tugs had the IWT searching far and wide.  One crew was sent out to Rio de Janeiro, the officer I/C was Lt.Lionel Greenstreet RE the Mate of Shackleton's Endurance who joined the IWT in 1917 after returning from Antarctica.  Several other tugs were bought from American and Canadian companies by the Canadian Salvage Association acting on behalf of the War Office and, having been sent to Halifax NS, heavily boarded in to improve their watertight integrity, were steamed across the Atlantic.  The IWT had an Officer, one Captain William H Owen RE, living/working at 510 Drummond Buildings, Montreal, who was nominally the "owner" of the tugs purchased and appears in the MN Register of Ships as such. 

Some of the tugs were totally unsuitable for the Atlantic crossing and were lucky to arrive, one, the "Eugene F Moran" did not, according to a newspaper article she foundered one mile off the breakwaters at Halifax on her somewhat curtailed delivery voyage to the UK, the crew were rescued! One of her sister tugs the Julis C Moran did, however make it.

HS may well stand for Harbour Service but nobody seems to know for sure, if that were the case, what then does the "As" prefix attached to river and canal tugs and lighters mean? The information will no doubt turn up at some stage.

Some of the comments appearing in Service Records rather sum up the attitude of the tug and barge crew concerning what can only be described as rather foolhardy attempted voyages. Sapper Walter Hubert was less than complimentary. See attachment

Tony

 

Edited 20 January , 2023 by MerchantOldSalt

[KizmeRD]

4 hours ago, MerchantOldSalt said:

There were known to be at least 104 HS Tugs, 32 of which were allocated to Richborough.

May I ask where this figure comes from, and what period of time it relates to? Only that figure is less than I’ve seen stated in a War Office publication from 1920 titled ’An account of the construction and workings of the Port of Richborough’ (TNA Ref MUN 4/6825) in which the number given at war’s end is 67. Could it be that this was the combined figure for the entire cross-channel barge service? (i.e. including operations at Southampton too). Or perhaps the 32 number was what they began with at Richborough, and it grew over time?

MB

[MerchantOldSalt]

10 hours ago, KizmeRD said:

May I ask where this figure comes from, and what period of time it relates to? Only that figure is less than I’ve seen stated in a War Office publication from 1920 titled ’An account of the construction and workings of the Port of Richborough’ (TNA Ref MUN 4/6825) in which the number given at war’s end is 67. Could it be that this was the combined figure for the entire cross-channel barge service? (i.e. including operations at Southampton too). Or perhaps the 32 number was what they began with at Richborough, and it grew over time?

MB

I can't find the figure of 67 you mention, just at the moment, will have to have a look later on, but the document to which you refer is dated early 1920, but that's on the cover only. It mentions 33 HS Tugs (various types) my figure of 32 comes from other files at Kew and I thought that it discounted HS 66 which went aground on the Goodwin Sands in 1918 and was a constructive total loss. I will have a read through all the files later and see what I can find to give you a better answer.

Tony

[KizmeRD]

Thanks for that, and I’m not saying you’re wrong, only that the figure of 32 needs to have a date attached to it in order make better sense of it.

Unfortunately the story of IWT support provided to the BEF in France and Belgium didn’t have the equivalent of Col. Hall’s Mespot book. There’s a chapter written in the official history of the Corps of RE which provides a good starting point and Col. Henniker also wrote a book on the History of the Great War Transportation on the Western Front that includes a lot of content regarding IWT activities (including the cross-channel barge service). Other than that, like you say, we really have to rely on bits and pieces available from TNA. 

By the way, I noticed that there’s a new 178 page book out, written by Colin Varrall dealing with the history and development of Richborough Port, which hopefully adds something to existing body of knowledge, although I’ve not yet read it myself.

MB