Meeting 9-16

Docklands History Group meeting Wednesday 5 October 2016 Barge Carrier Systems By David Hilling David said that his background was that of an academic geographer with a particular interest in shipping and port development, but who had not gone to sea. In retirement he had done lecturing and research and advised at the Greenwich Maritime Institute. He was involved in promotion of waterborne freight and over recent years the growth in Thames river freight movement. David explained the Americans had originally looked at such systems on their waterways and elsewhere where push tows were in use, such as the Rhine and the Danube. Where barges were going to and from sea going ships it was proposed that to save time loading and unloading them, logic dictated the barges themselves be placed on the ship. In the 1960s such ships were called LASH (lighters aboard ships). It avoided cargo handling at deep water quays in developing countries. In West Africa this could solve a serious port congestion problem where up to 400 ships might be waiting outside Lagos to get into port. The LASH ship had a large gantry crane on the stern which lifted the barge up and moved it along and put it in position. The lighter could carry up to 400 tons of cargo. It was similar to a container ship but the containers floated to and from their destinations. A tug would tow the LASH lighters. The first LASH ships were built for the timber trade. The ship could anchor away from main port areas as it did not need a deep water berth. Sheerness was the first UK LASH port in 1969, where the wartime battleship moorings in the river were used. The barges were towed to Strood and other smaller port facilities on the Medway and Thames. The LASH ships were followed by a catamaran type ship (BACAT) designed by a Dane to handle smaller barges in mainland Europe. The larger barges were lashed between the two hulls of the catamaran and smaller barges were placed on deck. The smaller barges could go to places such as York and Nottingham using the British waterways system. On the Humber Hull dockers objected to their by-passing the port. They won a legal case and the Catamaran ships operators pulled out of the UK. The ships were used in Bombay to by-pass the congestion. Smaller feeder ships were known as FLASH. In some areas smaller towed feeder LASH (FLASH) ships were used and like BACAT were semi-submersible, as were self-propelled (SPLASH) ships which could also carry containers. The barges could be floated on to the ship and then the ship would de-ballast and sail. At Gravesend the Lykes Lines (SEABEES) ships which were very large and had barges of about 800 tonnes used to anchor in the river off the town. They carried barges on three decks rather than in holds, the barges being lifted by six-motor stern elevators when the ship was semi-submerged. (The LASH ship with only a one-motor stern gantry crane was more vulnerable to break down.) One lift transported nearly 2,000 tons of cargo at one go. Containers were placed forward of the bridge. The military possibilities were seen. On top of barges could be put containers. The next system was FOFO, float on float off. The Russians developed a carrying system using even bigger barges. In 1982 they brought out a nuclear powered barge carrier but these were not accepted by many ports and spent time idle in ports such as Murmansk. Barge container (BACO) ships were introduced on the Europe-West Africa trades with barges taken on board through bow doors with the ship semi-submerged and some containers handled on to the deck by gantry crane. Three were built and the last was scrapped four years ago, disappearing like many BCVs after a useful life. A CODock was a floating container dock with a ramp at the end for RoRo as well as FoFo. Semi-submersible ships were used for all kinds of things. The deck could drop to 30 feet below water level. A sunk British warship was brought home as piggybank cargo, this way. Only 2.4 per cent of the barges transported came from inland and went to inland to be discharged as envisaged. Lack of subsidisation and the expense of running such ships meant the UK never invested in these systems. As the ships replaced port facilities the ship owner had to spend money on the ship rather than the port spending on its infrastructure. Further, container system standardisation caught on and LASH ships were not replaced. Barges were good for 400-800 tons, small bulk only and what were needed were multi purpose ships, not specialised ones. In the semi-submersible ship the BCV provided a design now favoured for delivering yachts and a variety of project cargo especially for off-shore engineering. The pure BCV had a short life but left its mark. © Sally Mashiter/David Hilling 20 October 2016.

Load more