|
Telling The Difference.
Many publications concerning the Humber's sloops and keels often have one statement in common that is incorrect but has influenced peoples idea of what a Humber sloop was. The statement reads similar to this: "The hull of a sloop is the same as that of a keel but has a fore and aft (or gaff) sailing rig". It is even believed by many that the Humber sloop was somehow developed from a keel.
The statement is only relevant to some aspects of the ships when related mainly to the Sheffield size of keel and sloop. Both have a bluff bow and round stern housing a cabin at each end; they both have similar deck equipment with the obvious difference in sail handling gear. The hulls are also similarly constructed whether in steel or wood. These craft were required to fit snugly into the locks that they traded through, a bluff bow and stern enabled maximum buoyancy from the forward and aft cabin area within that restricted overall length and width in turn allowing maximum cargo to be carried. Of course keels could be re-rigged with a sloop rig as was "Amy Howson" and would without doubt therefore have been the same as a keel. However, there's more to it than that. Having restored, sailed and studied the Humber's sloops over quite a few years now I thought I should address the matter, and show the distinctions between the sloops and keels, and look at the differences between the Humber sloops and their Sheffield size companions. 
Left is a print of a Sheffield Keel from the HYC yearbook of 1901 that also appears in Tony Watts book, Holmes of the Humber. ISBN 978-1-907206-00-9. Note the short contour lines depicting the shape of her stern.
Although quite capable of trading to other places these Sheffield sized ships earned their name through their dimensions (61ft 6" by 15ft 8") that allowed them to reach Sheffield basin via Tinsley flight. Other sizes of craft like the Market Weighting sloops earn their name accordingly based on their dimensions. There were in fact ten different sizes of vessel (predominantly associated with the keel) named by the waterways on which they traded. However, the Sheffield sloops had differing sailing characteristics and were also required to work on the lower Humber and did so in sometimes challenging conditions. This demanded a greater degree of sailing efficiency from the hull of the sloop over the hull of a keel.
That sailing efficiency was accomplished using one particular prominent feature from the Humber sloop, which was the run aft of the hull. The longer the better but a long run did compromise cargo space.
The run of a hull is the name given to the part of the ship that rises up toward the stern from its bottom and twists up to 90deg where it then meets the sternpost. The purpose of the run is to allow an unrestricted and constant water flow over the rudder, which enables the vessel to be steered, it also reduces the effect of drag during the water displacement induced by the forward movement of the ship and gives added longitudinal stability. Therefore the difference seldom recognised between the Sheffield sloops and their working companion the keel, is below the water. Don't take my word for it; we have examples of these ships to prove it. Given the opportunity, have a look at Sheffield keels "Onesimus" or "Southcliffe" to see how short their run is, about 22ft, and compare them with Sheffield sloop "Spider T" and then with Humber sloop "Phyllis". Unfortunately we will never see them all out of the water at the same time and in the same place.
It should however be noted that according to Capt Fred Schofield the sea going keels that traded up to the end of the 19th century also employed a longer run than that of the river keel for the same purpose as the sloops.
The Humber sloop could not have been more different from a keel. They were equally at home in the Humber or working along the east coast, trading to the Wash ports and south to London or north to Bridlington and Newcastle, and to creeks and inlets in between. They were strong and seaworthy vessels, with, in the later part of the 19th century, a carvel built hull planked with 2" thick oak, formed over oak frames 5" square and about 9" apart depending on the overall size of the vessel. With two hold areas, the sparring deck, that was not found on a keel, made room between the fore and aft holds to support the mast mounted on deck over a frame made up of four huge beams under the deck about 10" square, again depending on the size of the vessel. The two triple halyard rollers were also mounted on the sparring deck abeam the mast. These coasting sloops carried a pole mast (one piece) or a topmast and steeving bowsprit being able to hoist a topsail, jib and jib topsail or a second jib and were equipped with leeboards giving excellent sail balance and according to author George Holmes were well known for their speed. A 68ft sloop had a run length of half its length giving excellent manoeuvrability and best of all reduced drag allowing the speed that gave the sloops their reputation. Author John Leather quoting George Holmes wrote.
"The sloops where locally known for their speed, the best being able to beat a steamer from Hull to Goole given a fair wind and tide in the days when the steamers could average 9kts". George Holmes was referring to the big wooden sloops of the late 19th century carrying one or more jibs and a topsail.
Above is Humber sloop "Hydro" in full sail while at anchor c1900, she would have been a common sight to George Holmes on the Humber. His description of the Humber sloop is probably the most accurate.
Coupled with purposeful hull lines and plenty of sail they were adequate at sea and its said that some also made passage to Holland and France. Their trade was in wheat, coal, bricks, phosphates, tanning products, wool and farm produce to support many small inlet villages on the east coast as well as the London trade, mainly in coal.
Apart from economics there was no requirement to restrain the length or breadth of a Humber sloop and the sloops were usually larger vessels than the keels. The wooden vessels, both river and seagoing, ranged in size up to 68ft in length with a beam exceeding 17ft and over 8ft depth of hold. The later steel vessels reached 72ft in length.
A few large keels of 74ft loa and 17ft beam were built for the river Trent trade, these were only about 5ft depth of hold so pay load was at a minimum. Records show that "Tealo" built at WH Warrens in 1923 for S. Carmichael, was a huge keel of 75ft loa by 17ft 8" beam and 8ft 6" depth of hold, with a dead weight of 225 tons. If records are correct she must have been the biggest steel keel built. However, she seems to have been the exception rather than the rule.
The bow and stern of a Humber sloop was much less acute or less bluff than seen on the Sheffield size of vessel giving a greater length of the decks forward and aft. It was common for Humber sloops to have bulwarks, sometimes all round but often just around the bow and stern. These created a dryer and safer environment for the crew at sea and looked much like another of the Humber's sailing vessels, the Billy boy. Its possible that the term sloop rigged Billy boy may have been used to describe such vessels; A Billy boy is generally accepted locally as being a ketch, with a prominent sheer and a round bow and stern. Some had a clipper bow but a bluff bow was more common. These craft had all round bulwarks and usually wheel steering. The more beamy examples sometimes described as a "dickie" had no leeboards but carried a standing bowsprit with a number of jib sails and perhaps a square topsail. The sailing rig and number of sails varied.
Below is again the carvel built Humber sloop "Hydro" anchored in the Trent, the sparring deck, halyard roller arrangement and the hatches on the twin holds are clear to see. The size of the fore deck and a more pointed bow are also well demonstrated in this HKSPS archive photograph.
The inland sloops like the Sheffield size and the later all steel sloops after 1900 would have a single hold. These sloops being equipped with halyard rollers mounted on the combings sideways on to work the halyards. Hence named "crab rollers". The last steel constructed Humber sloop that had a twin holds and a sparring deck was "Brilliant Star" built in 1893 now slowly decaying half sunk in Wakefield. A sad end to a once proud ship.
 |
Above is another print from Tony Watts book, "Holmes of the Humber", showing "Autumn" a 68ft Humber sloop built by W.L Scarr and owned by Mr John Deheer of Hull, again from the HYC yearbook, this time 1903. The print shows a river sloop with a single hold and without a bowsprit but rigged with a jack-yard topsail. Sketches by George Holmes around the print show differently rigged sloops at key points along the Humber, Trent and Ouse. The difference in the length and number of the contour lines depicting the stem and stern of the ship in this example compared to the previous print of the keel is very apparent, demonstrating the much more efficient lines of the sloop against the keel.
By 1914 the seaward trade for the sloops had gone, most sloops now were built of steel and increasingly to the smaller Sheffield size to trade alongside the keels in river and canal work, a short bluff bow and stern on these sloops would therefore be required for the same reason as for the keels. The Sheffield sloops would also loose their bowsprit and topsails in favour of a simpler and more convenient rig of just main and foresail for river use. Its evident however that the local market boats kept their bowsprit and a single jib for some time after.
The Sheffield sloop, being a derivative of the Humber sloop, inherited the big sloops long run although to a somewhat lesser proportion depending on the owner's instruction to the builder. From plans at the Hull Maritime Museum it can be established that a typical Sheffield sloop like "Spider T" had a run of 25ft compared to 34ft on a 68ft Humber sloop. The Sheffield sloops however remained relatively quick compared to the keel. In later life after being motorised, the de-rigged sloops were favoured over the keels for towing, another property of the longer run.
The evolution of each of these craft had been shaped by the changing industry and requirements of river and coastal transport over centuries. The evolvement of both types of Humber ship, keel or sloop, no doubt also had influence from the many nationalities of vessels trading to the Humber, the Dutch being most probably the greatest in the fact that they brought us the gaff sail which enabled the conception of the Humber sloop. The concept of the design of the Humber sloop was developed through the necessity of coastal trade in the 18th century, the Dutch being the most prolific trader into the Humber simply demonstrated the efficiency of the gaff sail over the square sail. The Humber sloop and the Humber keel were without doubt different vessels and although in a later diversion of the sloop looked very similar, the sloop was initially a quite separately evolved ship. Not a development of a keel.
Perhaps now that we have a more established knowledge and a broader collection of craft in our midst future authors through reference to them and the knowledge base of the HKSPS can gather a more accurate understanding of the evolution of the Humber's sloop and the part it played in the industrial development along the Humber and its tributaries.
By. Alan Gardiner. HKSPS (www.sloopphyllis.com) © 05/08/2011
References from: The Hull Maritime Museum. Barton and the River Humber 1086-1900, Rodney Clapson. Holmes of the Humber, Tony Watts. The archive of the Humber Keel and Sloop Preservation Society.
Humber Keels and Keelmen, Fred Schofield. Mr Harold Harness.
|
