This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles
I just deleted "It was no coincidence that their heyday occurred during a period of when London expanded rapidly". The fact that their heyday came at the turn of the last century is already mentioned before, so it doesn't add new factual information. What the sentence actually means is left to the reader:
Did the barges recede after the turn of the century because London was too big?
Did London's growth end when it was saturated with barges?
Was both London's growth and the fact that the barges only needed 2 people owed to the common cause that Londoners then were more vigorous?
Of course it's not a coincidence in the sense that both London and the barges had their heyday at the historical pinnacle of a country that had been ruling the waves for 2 centuries. If the sentence said something like this, I wouldn't mind, although I think it goes without saying. Common Man02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa. I've just discovered that I'm the one who introduced the difficulty. The sentence you deleted used to follow immediately from "materials for building and brickmaking." Which are kinda closely related to London expanding (ie, mass building). Have fixed §, I hope to your satisfaction... JackyR21:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key reasons for the decline of the Thames Barge were the advent of the coastal steamer, the cost of labour and reliability. The Thames Barge was used extensively as a coastal cargo vessel carrying cargoes from ports on the east coast of England (and further afield) to and from London and the Thames estuary. With the advent of the steam powered coastal cargo vessel the coastal trade could be executed more reliably (ie not dependent on wind conditions) and eventually at a lower cost than a Thames Barge. At the end of the Thames Barge era the barge crew was the skipper, who was usually also the barge owner' plus a 'lad' who was a young boy paid very little money plus food and a bed on board. Sailing a barge with such a minimal crew was extemely hard brutal work. Slowly but surely ecoonomics prevailed and the costal steamer was more economic and reliable. ( A similar set of circumstances caused the decline of deep sea cargo vessels (eg clippers etc) where the advent of the steamer, gradual increasing mechanical efficiency, establishment of coaling stations at appropriate places around the globe and a requiremnt for significantly less crew caused the demise of the deep sea cargo sailing vessel). Boatman20:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason of the downfall of Thames barges as a cargo vessel was the advent of the Container. It is a simple matter to unload a container from a ship and put it onto an articulated lorry for tran-shipment. This liked to "just-in-time" manufacturing methods killed off any sort of "slow but steady" transport methods e.g. Canals in the uk. Containers put an end to the coastal/tramp steamer too for the same reason; the sea was too slow for most goods. On mainland Europe this effect was not noticed in the same way, the canals were bigger and lage motor barges and small coasters could handle containers and bulk goods to much greater effect.
Several Thames Barges were still trading under sail or sail/auxilary power in the late 1960s and were effectivly competing with pure powered coasters.
Containerization didn't really kick in till the 70s - Thames barges were well and truly finished as trading vessels by then. There were still plenty of steel hulled motor barges trading until the late 70s (i worked on one) and they'd taken over some of the sailing barges' work. But they couldn't (and didn't have any reason to) go to all the places the flat-bottomed Thames barges could go - i.e., right up to the farms. I reckon what really killed off Thames barges was road transport. Containerization killed off the motor barges. WillKemp (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Setting the tops'l on its own was a design advantage of this vessel. Firstly just using the tops'l allowed the barge to be de-powered quickly. The sail was laced to hoops on the topmast, this allowed the hallard to be let go "at the run" dropping the sail, thus reducing speed quicky. Secondly when manoevering in a dock, by wharfs etc. it allowed the sail to get clear air above the lee of the buildings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eastcoastsailor (talk • contribs) 11:38, 17 October 2006.
In my experience 'champagne glass section transom' is not a description in general useage (such as 'cruiser stern', 'slipper stern' 'clipper bow' etc etc). I am sure that that writers and observers have looked at the stern of some boats and remarked that it looked like a champagne glass or a wine glass etc but I have not come across 'champagne glass section transom' as a term in common usage. Other contributors may like to comment on this as there may be regional variatins in US versus Europe for example. Boatman10:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite book|last1=Benham|first1=Hervey|last2=Kershaw|first2=Philip|last3=Finch|first3=Roger|title=Down tops'l : the story of the East Coast sailing-barges|date=1986|publisher=Harrap|location=London|isbn=0-245-54487-9|edition=3rd |ref={{sfnref|Benham|1951}}}}
Benham, Hervey; Kershaw, Philip; Finch, Roger (1986). Down tops'l : the story of the East Coast sailing-barges (3rd ed.). London: Harrap. ISBN0-245-54487-9.
Editor DavidAnstissremoved the clarify template with an edit summary that noted that 1951 is first edition and 1986 is third edition.
That is nice to know but cs1 templates are designed to render a citation for a single source. Which edition of Benham et al. is being cited? Because this cs1 template has |ref={{sfnref|Benham|1951}} that suggests that there is or will be a {{sfn|Benham|1951}} (or similar {{harv}}) template placed in the body of the article. A reader should not click Benham 1951 and land at Benham et al. 1986. The dates in {{sfnref}} and {{cite book}} should agree so that we don't confuse readers.
@Trappist the monk: Well spotted. I will wear this barnstar with pride- it is the first time that I have been responsible for exposing a dodgy cs1 template! Obviously a case of not validating the data before assigning it. But, the more interesting question is why I would want to refer to this 1986 reprint of the 1971 second edition of this 1951 book in such a way. Well, I bought this Hervey Benham, as a lot of the literature I have been using to verify the article kept referring to this as Benhams seminal 1951 book:I can now see why this was important, it inspired events well before 1971, when Harrop decided that it needed to be re-issued. So to be consistent with TSB literature I did the same- WP obviously hadn't seen this possibility. Now I am not clear from examining the imprest on page 4 whether this is a third edition or a second impression of the second. Note too the two acknowlegements on page 9- nothing from 1986. This leads me to think that Messrs Harraps have not played fairly when the electronic data item was put together! Please change this for what ever consistency you prefer, and clean up the code so that this crime throws up an error message.ClemRutter (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reefing normally has the effect of lowering the sail, not raising the boom foot. Can someone confirm this unusual usage (preferably with a citation) please, otherwise the parenthesised expression looks like pure speculation: "this could be achieved by reefing". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two hours and three minutes searching and I have found the confirmatory reference trail. This is the source I used- Note text bottom right I cropped the image to get rid of the text and uploaded it as File:Thames barge model stackie Venta 7003c.JPG . The text clearly says 'reefed"- but I too was a little queasy abut that usage! Where did it come from - five books later March Carr Benham etc I( got to Bob Roberts Roberts, Bob (2002). Last of the sailormen (Repr. ed.). Rendlesham, Suffolk: Seafarer Books. p. 52. ISBN0953818047.
...The mainsail would be laced up to a specially provided row of eyelets half way up the sail, the foresail likewise, and the main brail taken off the crabwinch by the mast and led forward to the dolly winch on the windlass bitt heads...
Dinghy sailors my have roller reefing gear but that was how reefing was done on the Salcombe Yawl I learnt to sail on- we laced down to the boom.
OK Clem, if the text says "reefed" I'll go with that. The point though is lacing down (or for dinghies rolling down) is the norm today. In passing, I've just thought, presumably ships would reef up to the yard so I can see where the usage comes from. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: Can a interpretive panel at a temporary exhibition be considered published. Good question- the answer surprised me too. There are two tests: pubished to the public even if withdrawn later, and accessible to the public.
The item was published- on a dockside in Central London. 17 September 2017, 13:19:02 No entry charges. Looking at the examples on the page- bullet point 5--- a billboard, or poster. It couls also be seen as bullet point 2 -- a pamphlet or a flyer. As a live event it was published.
The second point accessible is also interesting. I have photographs of all the panels that I took that I haven't uploaded to commons as I see them as a derivative work, and I unsure of the copyright status- and assume I have a right to use them for my personal use. (Whether this would be Fair use is just to convoluted). However File:Thames barge model stackie 7003.jpg (which I uploaded for Martins benefit as a 3D image -FOP-UK containing some text) does allow certain facts to be verified. So in this case- I believe that the reference passes the test- but possible the test fails scrutiny!
Lets, look at some options- as a popup museum it will pop up again. If you ask me we to see it, I can say yes, it will be available to you annually per the photo, or at Chatham Dockyard 3rd June. The test doesn't state it must be instantly accessible. If you ask the editor of the fact (me) for a copy of the panel, I believe that I am allowed to show it to you but not to give it to you (publish online) even in my Dropbox) as I have it om my cmera for personal use. If the info boards are copied flat- they are 2D, but if I include the frame holding them we are 3D and FOP. It was the intention of the exhibtors for this to be seen as a 3D event/display how do we interpret the contents of those board. If I give them to you they are accessible - but if I can't they are in accessible.
It would be intersting to clarify the issues I have raised though. As it is, the results are surprising. They have limited application on this page as I have now acquired a larger library of barging books and am looking to extend the section to detail the different trades bricks grain cement etc. ClemRutter (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The shortcut I mentioned in the {{better source}} template was WP:PUBLISHED, part of WP:RS; not WP:PUBLISH; yeah, that's confusing. To me the important bit of WP:PUBLISHED was this sentence:
"Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist."
Can you really say that because a pop-up museum popped up once, that it therefore must pop up again? Sure, I could ask you, if you are still alive and around to respond to the request. Of course, the parent museum (there is one, right?) that produced the pop up, must have a 'source' for their claim so readers may be able to get the source from the parent museum if the identity of the parent museum can be discovered.
I won't enter into a discussion of copyright; I know too little about that subject.
I put the {{better source}} template in the article because it seems to me that there ought to be a better source available – the pop-up museum 'discovered the facts'; surely those 'facts' are documented some place. Right? I did not consider the text that the citation purports to support. Looking back at it now, one of the criteria (perhaps the prime criterion) for referencing is: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation." (WP:V) Is anything that the Venta citation is supporting 'likely to be challenged'? I would say: no. Barges are more efficient when it comes to carrying large loads of material when compared to any variety of animal-powered wheeled vehicles. It has been ever thus. Perhaps this citation is not really needed.
We have been assessed and told our referencing is not adequate for a B class article. Solution- check each reference, add references where missing.
We need to do more commerce. We have a section on the hay trade but nothing on grain, bricks, stone, transhipping, cement, timber etc. Solution- expand.
We need to have more on range, the barge ports the yards, the hoy companies, seeker companies. Start
We have lttle save anecdote on construction, rigging, motors. Solution. I have been building this up on the article on SB Kathleen, and taken some sections over to SB Decima, so I propose to c&p the Kathleen section over her as a first stage then expand it to include the wider issues needed here. There were differences over 170 years. I am posting this so you can see my direction of travel. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Text from this article has been incorporated in the article SB Centaur.
Good evening to all. I hope that no one minds me taking some text from this article to expand the Centaur one. It was so well phrased here that I didn't have the heart to try and come up with my own, inevitably inferior, explanation. I am hoping to try SB Centaur at a GAN soon, so if anyone would care to cast an eye over it and find fault I would be grateful. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that for the sea going barges the retractable leeboards were a necessary and important feature. But the article doesn't mention them. Am I wrong? Or could someone with the technical knowledge give a bit of detail of why they were fitted and what they did? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
