NO. 64

NO. 64

Postby teesships » Sat May 26, 2012 9:57 pm

The quaintly named NO. 64 seen on 21 November 1964:
1114no64.jpg

NO. 64, Tees Conservancy Commissioners, Middlesbrough, 491gt, completed Earles, Hull 9-1912. Acquired by T.C.C. 1920.
BU Middlesbrough 6.67 [W.G.Redman]. Had passed to the new Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority on 1.1.1967.

Miramar and other sources record her as carrying this one name throughout her life. However, George has information that having been built as NO. 64 she then became J.CONSTANT V then CENTRAL No.2 before reverting to NO. 64 in 1920. (dates for these changes not known).

Ron
teesships
 
Posts: 6600
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 7:47 pm
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: NO. 64

Postby northeast » Sun May 27, 2012 6:43 am

.... and now I can't find wherever I got those other names! Not in an old Tees Packet, I suppose!
She and sister No.63 were both built for Joseph Constant, London and the 'names' J CONSTANT IV and J CONSTANT V associated with them might have been a company identification prior to them getting the splendid numbers. Both to TCC from 1920.
No.63 was broken up at Dunston in 1936, an early end for a hopper of this period so possibly with some damage, we can surmise.
Earle's yard numbers were 587 and 588.
Cheers, George
northeast
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4600
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 5:13 pm
Location: East Yorkshire

Re: NO. 64

Postby teesships » Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:19 pm

50 YEARS AGO TODAY

Companion view to the one above - 21 November 1964:
PHNO64.JPG
Ron
teesships
 
Posts: 6600
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 7:47 pm
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: NO. 64

Postby Ian Buxton » Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:01 pm

I have her launch name as J CONSTANT V, but completed as No.64. Mercantile Navy List 1919 and 1924 and 1939 have her as No. 64. MNL gives no ex names, so that suggests she was not CENTRAL No. 2 during that period. What was her fate?
Ian Buxton
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: NO. 64

Postby teesships » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:01 pm

Ian,

Fate as recorded by Miramar and in her details above: BU Middlesbrough 6.67 [W.G.Redman]

Now that is interesting! A web search shows W.G. Readman Ltd., Cochranes Wharf, Middlesbrough;
and also: Redman Steel Ltd., Cochranes Wharf.

I always thought it was Readman, but now I wonder??

Ron
teesships
 
Posts: 6600
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 7:47 pm
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: NO. 64

Postby shipbroker » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:15 pm

As we used to hear on Albert Park Ron " come in No.64, your time is up!"...

Readman it was...
geoff
shipbroker
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:13 pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: NO. 64

Postby taximan » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:33 am

teesships wrote:Ian,

Fate as recorded by Miramar and in her details above: BU Middlesbrough 6.67 [W.G.Redman]

Now that is interesting! A web search shows W.G. Readman Ltd., Cochranes Wharf, Middlesbrough;
and also: Redman Steel Ltd., Cochranes Wharf.

I always thought it was Readman, but now I wonder??

Ron


She was actually broken up in the TCC Graving Dock along with the old diving barge
Just one more trip
taximan
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 7:46 am

Re: NO. 64

Postby teesships » Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:48 pm

Now that I have found John Proud's TCC fleet list in TEES PACKETS from 2002/3, issue no. 152 of November 2002 gives fuller details of the career of NO. 64. It does not, however, much clarify the matter of any previous name! It also introduces another name we did not have before!

John confirms she was completed in 1912 for J. Constant of London as NO. 64. He then says she was on Admiralty service during WW1 with the name LORD BENFLEET. Purchased for £21,000 by TCC in 1920 and reverted to the name NO. 64. He does not help us clarify where she was broken up in 1967. He also adds that c1939 she was requisitioned as a Boom Defence Vessel until she left the Tees in June 1943. Returned to TCC on 10 June 1945 and re-entered service in January 1946.

Taximan, I suspect your memory will be correct about her being broken up in the old TCC Graving Dock. Just wonder, however, if the demolition work was sub-contracted to Readman's who were more or less next door?

A sister vessel was called NO. 63 of similar vintage and history. John records her as having the name LORD NORTHFLEET during WW1. She had a relatively short career, being broken up by Clayton & Davie Ltd., Gateshead, leaving the Tees on 17 March 1936. She was sold for the princely sum of £650.

One of my prized possesions, salvaged from simply being thrown away around the time I left the Port Authority in December 1999, is an old black booklet with typed pages full of details about TCC vessels. I think it was compiled during the 1930s, possibly by Jack Russell, who was the Engineers' Clerk in Queens Square when I joined TCC. Albeit comprehensive on technical detail of vessels, it is silent over any former names carried by the two hoppers.

Ron
teesships
 
Posts: 6600
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 7:47 pm
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: NO. 64

Postby taximan » Mon Nov 02, 2015 2:53 pm

Taximan, I suspect your memory will be correct about her being broken up in the old TCC Graving Dock. Just wonder, however, if the demolition work was sub-contracted to Readman's who were more or less next door?


Ron[/quote]





The wrecking crew were not employees of the TCC so yes, they must have been contractors.
Just one more trip
taximan
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 7:46 am


Return to T.C.C. craft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron