ITM CHALLENGER

Re: ITM CHALLENGER

Postby fitter » Sun Mar 10, 2013 1:11 pm

magoonigal wrote:Its always the best place to look, Tom.

Original Records usually get it right.
The problems arise when someone state's something that is incorrect and other people copy it into other publications.

Having said that, Lloyds don't always get it right, but usually because they have not been supplied with the correct information in the first place.

Best of luck!


Like myself and others, you will have found it toatlly frustrating that there can be so many errors and so many incorrect memories that make facts out of fiction. In a Doxford promotional leaflet outputs for up to a ten cylinder P type engine had been listed. There was never anything bigger than a 6 cylinder P type built, but in the mind of one fellow, because it had been listed it had existed. It was aslo the case that he had pictures of the Doxford submarine engine and it was to be a single cylinder design!!! He had the photo to prove it. What he had was a photo of the prototype single single cylinder demonstration engine that had to be sent to the Admiralty for aproval. It never was approved, but the proposal was in fact for a four engine installation with six cylinders each. It was impossible to wrest the single cylinder submarine engine concept from his mind. Worse, he was a Doxford Engines employee and I wouldn't dare reveal where he worked, suffice to say he used pencils and tee squares on large drawing boards at his daily work. :oops:
Still working and living 40 miles from Newcastle, Tyne and Wear Archives visits are not easy to accomodate for me. It will be much easier if we can persuade the Archives to open all day Saturday and Sunday when a lot more peole are off work and could go more easily, even dropping "her" off at Metro for the day. Alternatively they could put everything on line and we cpould access it from home. :P
Conventional wisdom out in the sticks is "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people believe you are an idot rather than open your mouth and prove them right." Or keep your fingers of keyboards to be more modern. I keep thinking that I have learned that lesson but often find I have some way to go. I do apologise for any inaccuracies that may crop up in my posts and welcome every correction that peole are decent enough to send.
fitter
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: ITM CHALLENGER

Postby Tony Frost » Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:11 pm

Challenger.JPG
Tony Frost
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Sunderland by the sea

Re: ITM CHALLENGER

Postby Dennis Maccoy » Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:58 pm

Outfitting on 18 April 1987.
ITM Challenger, 18 April 1987_2_1.jpg
Regards, Dennis.
Dennis Maccoy
 
Posts: 1625
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 7:37 pm
Location: South Shields

Re: ITM CHALLENGER

Postby Dennis Maccoy » Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:24 am

Challenger nearing completion on 20 December 1987.
Challenger, 20 December 1987 (1)_1.jpg
Challenger, 20 December 1987 (2)_1.jpg
Challenger, 20 December 1987 (3)_1.jpg
Regards, Dennis.
Dennis Maccoy
 
Posts: 1625
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 7:37 pm
Location: South Shields

Re: ITM CHALLENGER

Postby Whickham » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:11 am

I guess this is CHALLENGER leaving the river as she is flying loads of bunting.

Challenger.jpg
Photo by Alan Graham

Built as: CHALLENGER
Yard: North East SB, North Sands
Yard No: 868
Year: 1988
IMO: 8503539
Names: Launched as ITM CHALLENGER - 1988 McDERMOTT DERRICK BARGE No.50
End:
Fate: Still in service
Data courtesy of Miramar
Dave
Whickham
 
Posts: 7900
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 9:10 pm
Location: Whickham, Gateshead

Previous

Return to Thompson JL / North Sands

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests