|
The Humber sloop was very much influenced by the Dutch, with a single gaff rigged mast employing a loose footed main sail, self tacking foresail and a range of head and top sails the sloops traded within and between the Humber and other east coast regions from the early 18th century. Some being able to carry over 170 tons the early wooden Humber sloops were between 57ft and 68ft Loa with a beam between 16ft and 18ft, the later steel hulled sloops could be as much as 72ft Loa, all were significant in the evolution of national and international trade on the Humber being a valuable tool to the merchants who traded goods to home and foreign ports. They were the region's equivalent to the modern day coaster, providing a means of transporting large and mixed cargoes between ports on the Humber and along the east c oast where shallow drafted flat bottomed vessels were essential to navigate small creeks, havens and inlets. Some would trade to the near continent with a crew of four to stand a two man alternate watch while at sea. Strongly built of oak initially using clinker construction the sloops were later built using a method employing both carvel and clinker construction, during the second half of the 19th century the construction would turn to fully carvel built vessels and by 1880 iron was beginning to be used in local yards. By the start of WW1 steel was being used throughout the shipbuilding industry but wooden craft were still also being built in yards like Dunstons at Thorne and Clapson & Son at Barton.
The Humber sloops could be divided into two basic groups; those that traded regularly to coastal ports and havens, and those that traded inland within the confines of the Humber and its tributaries. From the 19th century those in the regular coasting trade were given a Certificate of British Registry and a unique signal flag sequence that was flown while at sea for identification purposes. Rodney Clapsons book; Barton and the River Humber, ISBN 0 900959 20 7 highlights the system and gives details of many of the local sea going sloops that where given code flags.
The coasting sloops usually had two separate holds and had little need to lower their mast in the course of their work. They were rigged with either topmast or a pole mast (full length single mast) which could be rigged with a variety of topsails, the bow was short stemmed to be fitted with standing bowsprit and jib. Some flew a second jib or jib top sail, depending on the top sail arrangement they may also have been rigged with rattlings (rat lines) on the shrouds to enable the crew to work aloft, all making them more efficient at sea. From early 18th century paintings we can tell that very early wooden sloops carried a huge flat peaked main sail with the boom extended over the after deck, the popular topsail arrangement was a four sided sail hoisted on a yard rather like a dipping lug or a triangular sail hooped to the topmast and worked from aloft using the rattlings. These big seagoing sloops must have been a colourful sight on the Humber with all sails set, from remarks in his book (Humber Keels and Keelmen. ISBN 0 86138 059 2) keelman Captain Fred Schofield tells us that traditionally the seagoing sloops had tanned main and fore sails but the top and head sails were white, some however had all white sails (Ref:- Reuben Chappell, Elizabeth Ann 1860) others are depicted with all tan sails, much would depend on cost and availability as sails from de-rigged or decommissioned vessels were often used on others. They were also known to carry (depending on the captain) a square sail and yard that would be used at sea in light airs or on the inland waterways like the River Hull that they could navigate under sail making them easy to mistake for a keel on old photos. The white sails were often referred to as "Summer Sails" and would be stowed in the fore cabin in winter. The winding gear for hoisting the sails consisted of a pair of triple rollers being located each side of the mast athwart ship in the "sparring" a section of deck between the two holds, the mast was stepped in a lutchet mounted on deck. Being more of a fixture than the inland sloops with no fore stay tackle permanently rigged plus the fact that the mast was stepped between the aft and forward hold meant that it could not readily be lowered.
 |
A typical late 1800's Humber sloop, "Sulpho" at anchor in the Trent. The hold arrangement can clearly be seen.
Those that didn't trade seaward had the option of a yarded topsail or a well-peaked main sail with foresail and were built with a single full-length hold. With much less rigging they were easier to manoeuvre in the locks and docks although the market sloops that seldom used any locks would carry a bowsprit and jib as could sloops employed in the sand and gravel trade. Double rollers for hoisting the sails were set against the coamings (the sides of the hold), and because they were mounted sideways on they were known at "crab" rollers. A removable mast-way provided in the hatches allowed the mast to be lowered aft between a set of short hatches. The mast stepped in its lutchet some 3ft below the hatches was lowered by means of the permanently rigged fore stay blocks controlled by a fore roller attached to the front of the hold area above deck that was known as the forward head ledge. The sail would first be unlaced from the mast hoops, and then the gaff and boom complete with the sail would be removed and stowed on the hatches. Both coasting and inland sloops had heavy oak and pitch pine leeboards operated from the aft deck by a vertical roller set into the fore end of the after rail. The seagoing sloops would probably have had a more slender leeboard than the inland working sloops where greater effect from them was desired in the strong tides and shallow water of the Humber . At sea with a light sloop the leeboards may not even have been used in some sea conditions as the ships were better balanced with their more efficient sail configuration, a loaded sloop wouldn't have used them.
Sloop dimensions where usually larger than that of the keels and the sloops were not particularly suited to working far inland from the Humber, Trent or Ouse. One disadvantage of the sloop for inland work was that it could take even a practised crew twenty minutes or more to lower the mast whereas a keel crew could have the mast down in less than ten. The restrictions on width and air draught along parts of the canal system meant that the sloops would need to unship their leeboards and mast to leave along with their cog boat at strategic points like Stainforth on the Sheffield navigation to be able to navigate the rest of the waterway. The parts of the system that could be navigated without removing the leeboards however may still involve lowering the mast at some point. Time spent lowering the rig could make the difference in engaging a horse marine or bow yanking your own barge up the canal and it was impossible for a sloop to shoot a bridge. Both being reasons why keels were preferred in the inland trade to sloops.
 |
The staithe at Stainforth showing the crane used to unship sailing gear, masts and spars with a collection of leeboards can be seen to the left of the crane.
However many did trade inland and this brought about the same restrictions of hull size as the keel that depended on which waterway they worked. There were ten differently named and historically recognised variations of types of keel and in turn variations of the Humber sloop used for trading inland from the Humber, none being greater than 15ft 8" beam (to outer edge of moulding) or used in the regular coasting trade. These were; Sheffield 61ft 6" by 15ft 6", Barnsley 70ft by 14ft 4", West Country 57ft 6" by 14ft 2", Manvers, Wath, Dearne & Dove 57ft 6" by 14ft 8", Driffield 61ft by 14ft 6", Louth 72ft by 15ft, Trent 74ft by 14ft 4", Lincoln 74ft by 14ft 4", Horncastle 54ft by 14ft 4", and Market Weighton 66ft by 14ft 6". Of course not all these waterways had sloops working on them, these were the domain of the keel and remained so until the motor took over from sail. The above dimensions are those that are recounted in several well read publications, however, the dimensions themselves must have altered with the evolvement of the individual waterway. A sketch in the HYC Yearbook from 1901 by George Holmes of a Sheffield size keel shows the vessel being 60ft 3" by 15ft 3". The width and length of the locks built by the local Waterway Authority and the depth of the water determined the size of vessel that could be used along the navigation forcing the cargoes to be hauled by the Authorities own craft, ensuring both navigation fee's and cargo handling fee's were collected from the owners of larger craft. Of course the narrower and shallower the canal, the cheaper it was to build.
One or two captains of these smaller vessels would during the summer take on cargo's for the Wash ports like Boston and Hunstanton returning with shingle for Grimsby off the beach at Snettisham. Dick Cook of Owsten Ferry was one of these captains who along with his son and grandson as crew traded to the Wash with their sloop "Sarah" built at Gainsborough in 1889. (Fred Schofield, Humber Keels and Keelmen. ISBN 0 86138 059 2 ). The passage into and out of the Wash was helped by the predictable tide run that flowed past the Humber and down into the Wash.
The Sheffield size was the usual variation of the Humber sloop and is the best known and the closest comparison but of course there were many built of a size that suited their owners requirement or pocket that may well have been different to these recognised dimensions. One of the smallest sloops seen on record was "Two Brothers" at just 35ft 5" Loa by 14ft 2" beam, built at Gainsborough in 1803. (Rodney Clapson; Barton and the River Humber, ISBN 0 900959 20 7)
The bluff bow of the Sheffield sloops fitted snugly into the locks of the waterways they traded on and gave excellent buoyancy in the relatively flat water of the Ouse or Trent and could be loaded to maximum draught. It was believed by some that the buoyancy in the fore and aft end of the ship was enough to keep it afloat if the hold flooded (sadly proved wrong on several occasions). But when loaded on the Humber in rough weather water would crash up over the horse plate flooding the fore deck and down the side of the ship, if she started to nod in a series of big swells the bow would dip under water bringing her to a stand still and waves would roll over the hatches down the ship and could wash the helmsman overboard from the after deck. I remember watching motor barges as a lad heading up river past Barton with waves rolling down the hatches and breaking over the wheel house when the bow dipped in. The bows on the Humber sloops were more rounded offering less resistance and the hulls had more shear, this kept her head up when loaded, although water could often be on the side decks while sailing and the rounder bow gave better sea keeping qualities. The seagoing sloops were bound by insurance regulations regarding freeboard (the height of the deck above water) and always returned in ballast if no cargo was available helping to stabilise the ship. With their flat bottoms the sloops were well known for their ability to roll violently in a beam sea.
I just want to touch on the term "Billy boy sloop" it is heard from time to time and has had , in my view, incorrect definitions in a collection of publications. The name Billy boy was a nick name given to the men of Hull at some stage in the early 18th century, relating to the support that the people of Hull gave to King William of Orange (King Billy) after the defeat of the House of Stuart in 1688. This was commemorated by a statue of him on horseback being placed in the market of the city. As most of the sloops were owned and crewed from the Barton side of the Humber (Lincolnshire) any sloop owned or crewed from the Hull side (Yorkshire) would be referred to as a "Billy boy sloop" by the people of Barton, particularly those working the sloops. Therefore its important that the term "Billy boy sloop" (A sloop crewed by Billy boys) is not confused, as is sometimes the case, with that of a "sloop rigged Billy boy". Here the term "Billy boy" is referring to a type of vessel which is a completely different ship, although again the name is thought to have originated from the men that sailed them.
In 1840 the Humber sloops were busy with one of the most challenging haulage contracts that they could wish to undertake. The stone to rebuild the Houses of Parliament was to be cut from North Anston Quarry and transported along the Chesterfield canal by " Cuckoo" boat to be transhipped onto Humber sloops at West Stockwith for the trip down to London and up the Thames. Offloaded near to the site of the new building each sloop chartered would carrying 110 ton of stone and made the trip to London and back each week until completion. The book "Yorkshire Stone to London" (ISBN 978-0-9552609-2-6) by Christine Richardson tells the whole story.
|
