Lovely to see Waverley back on the East Coast.

[dunedin]

I was given to understand that in the early days, some paddle steamers were fitted with the ability to operate the paddle wheels independently, but that it turned out to result in more problems than it solved, not least dangerous instability. Obviously operating them both on one shaft is mechanically far simpler, too, but there are obvious schemes to do that would not be substantially more complex - for example, instead of having two pistons connected to one shaft, split the shaft and have one piston on each shaft. That would probably come with an efficiency cost. Someone here once pointed out that paddle tug boats sometimes had independent paddles.

This stability point is certainly what I had understood was the reason the paddles cannot be counter-rotated.
Certainly by the time Waverley was built in 1946, we had technology to build aircraft carriers (that worked!), sophisticated aircraft etc, so a clutch mechanism for independent paddle operation would not have been a big technical challenge - though the extra cost might have have been

 

[LONG_KEELER]

I did this trip last year and would agree with everything you say ,,,,,, although 11 hours was a long day and we were getting a bit bored by the time we arrived at Tower Bridge. The final move through Tower Bridge was quite spectacular, and the highlight of the trip ....... as you say the commentator was first class, and well informed

Yes, it was a long but pleasurable day. I fell asleep on the coach on the way back to North Essex.
When the Waverley went through Tower Bridge at dusk, there was loud whooping and applauding from the shores which was unexpected. Clearly a boat that puts a smile on everybody's face.

 

[rightstuff]

class, and well informed
[/QUOTE]

Yes, it was a long but pleasurable day. I fell asleep on the coach on the way back to North Essex.
When the Waverley went through Tower Bridge at dusk, there was loud whooping and applauding from the shores which was unexpected. Clearly a boat that puts a smile on everybody's face.

 

[rightstuff]

class, and well informed

[/QUOTE]

 

[PeterWright]

I was given to understand that in the early days, some paddle steamers were fitted with the ability to operate the paddle wheels independently, but that it turned out to result in more problems than it solved, not least dangerous instability. Obviously operating them both on one shaft is mechanically far simpler, too, but there are obvious schemes to do that would not be substantially more complex - for example, instead of having two pistons connected to one shaft, split the shaft and have one piston on each shaft. That would probably come with an efficiency cost. Someone here once pointed out that paddle tug boats sometimes had independent paddles.

My understanding is that the paddle tugs with contrarotating paddles came towards the end of the paddle ship era, after propellers had been introduced.

Peter.

 

[oldgit]

Contra Rotating Paddles. A much debated matter.
Urban Maritime Myth. ?
Nobody actually able to produce anything at all regards legislation on this.

 

[PeterWright]

Hi Oldgit,

So far my contributions to this have come from my once good but now deteriorating memory. I have found, by Googling MoD paddle tugs, reference to the Director class tugs, of which 7 were built in 1957 / 58, which were described as diesel electric, powered by 4 Paxman diesels with electrics by BTH. These vessels were 157 ft long and 60 ft beam (presumably including the paddle boxes) so would have been much less prone to capsize than the typically narrow gutted passenger paddle steamer like Waverly.

My memory tells me that they had the capability to contra rotate their paddles, but I have yet to verify that. However, electric transmission, being widely developed for railway use at the time, would have been an elegant solution to the transmission conundrum presented by wanting four main engines to drive two paddle wheels with an independent reversing capability for both. Ready availability of electric power for auxiliary purposes would have been an added bonus.

More frustrating to me is the absence of any insight as to why the Mod chose paddlers for tugs in the 1950's.

Peter.

Edit.
More written in the cyberworld about making models of the Director class tugs than about the tugs themselves, and none of tose models seem to offer any drive to the paddles so that's not very helpful! However, I did find one useful site:

Director Class (rfanostalgia.org)

Apart from helpful photos, this includes a description of the paddles drive:

Length 155 ' Beam 60' Draught 12'CRT 472 Speed 13 knots Engines Paxman Diesel 12 YHAXZ x 4 BHP 1600 Propulsion 2 Electrically driven independent paddle wheels Bollard Pull 16 tons Range 5,900 miles @ 13 knots. Complement 22.

While this doesn't explicitly state the capability to contrarotate the paddles, the word independent is a very strong suggestion of that capability. An electric drive would have made it relatively easy to build in an interlock to limit the torque available at the paddles when contra rotating to protect against the capsize hazard which AP rightly drew attention to - I guess in that era, any interlocking would have been engineered in electromechanical relays, rather than electronics, which were not yet having much impact on our lives. Naval radar was still valve powered rather than solid state. Also note that this description has reduced thebeam by 2 foot from the source I found earlier.

Anyway, I think I'm pushing the drift of this thread a bit too far from the beauty of seeing Waverly back on her (hopefully) annual visit to Gods own waters, so I'll leave the tugs there.

My dodgy memory also tells me that Waverly was built in 1946 (seems late to me for a paddle steamer) because she was built as compensation for a very similar Clyde paddler which was lost in service to the nation (Dunkirk??) in WW2. Because the vessel lost was a paddler, the replacement was built the same, rather than update her with a fore and aft shaft and a screw. Is that my imagination again or am I dreaming again?

Peter.

 

[LONG_KEELER]

When I looked she was rounding Land's End on her way back to that Dear Green Place .

 

[scottie]

Hi Oldgit,

So far my contributions to this have come from my once good but now deteriorating memory. I have found, by Googling MoD paddle tugs, reference to the Director class tugs, of which 7 were built in 1957 / 58, which were described as diesel electric, powered by 4 Paxman diesels with electrics by BTH. These vessels were 157 ft long and 60 ft beam (presumably including the paddle boxes) so would have been much less prone to capsize than the typically narrow gutted passenger paddle steamer like Waverly.

My memory tells me that they had the capability to contra rotate their paddles, but I have yet to verify that. However, electric transmission, being widely developed for railway use at the time, would have been an elegant solution to the transmission conundrum presented by wanting four main engines to drive two paddle wheels with an independent reversing capability for both. Ready availability of electric power for auxiliary purposes would have been an added bonus.

More frustrating to me is the absence of any insight as to why the Mod chose paddlers for tugs in the 1950's.

Peter.

Edit.
More written in the cyberworld about making models of the Director class tugs than about the tugs themselves, and none of tose models seem to offer any drive to the paddles so that's not very helpful! However, I did find one useful site:

Director Class (rfanostalgia.org)

Apart from helpful photos, this includes a description of the paddles drive:

Length 155 ' Beam 60' Draught 12'CRT 472 Speed 13 knots Engines Paxman Diesel 12 YHAXZ x 4 BHP 1600 Propulsion 2 Electrically driven independent paddle wheels Bollard Pull 16 tons Range 5,900 miles @ 13 knots. Complement 22.

While this doesn't explicitly state the capability to contrarotate the paddles, the word independent is a very strong suggestion of that capability. An electric drive would have made it relatively easy to build in an interlock to limit the torque available at the paddles when contra rotating to protect against the capsize hazard which AP rightly drew attention to - I guess in that era, any interlocking would have been engineered in electromechanical relays, rather than electronics, which were not yet having much impact on our lives. Naval radar was still valve powered rather than solid state. Also note that this description has reduced thebeam by 2 foot from the source I found earlier.

Anyway, I think I'm pushing the drift of this thread a bit too far from the beauty of seeing Waverly back on her (hopefully) annual visit to Gods own waters, so I'll leave the tugs there.

My dodgy memory also tells me that Waverly was built in 1946 (seems late to me for a paddle steamer) because she was built as compensation for a very similar Clyde paddler which was lost in service to the nation (Dunkirk??) in WW2. Because the vessel lost was a paddler, the replacement was built the same, rather than update her with a fore and aft shaft and a screw. Is that my imagination again or am I dreaming again?

Peter.

I would agree with your recall and raise you a Craigendoran which is a village next to Helensburgh which had a very shallow draught pier and as jet drives were not an realistic option at that time paddles were chosen option

 

[Mel]

Just leaving Harwich