Talk:Thames sailing barge

message: 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 Man 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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... JackyR 21:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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).  Boatman 20:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Deleted sentence about coincidence and heyday

message: Just curious: In which conditions would one set only the tops'l? When one needs to heel? Common Man 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should just remove this sentence. Common Man 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topsail on its own 

message: What is a champagne glass section transom? Common Man 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Boatman 10:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds enough for me. Will change.JackyR 15:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  champagne glass section transom 

message: Time for a clearout? Some seem to be spam, offering charter opportunities. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections? Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I've tried to find this. Not in New Zealand surely?. Intalok (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnote added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the "East Swin " ? [[User:Intalok|Intalok]] ([[User talk:Intalok|talk]]) 04:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 

message: *BBC Kent Nick Ardley Childhood on a barge in 1950s-1960s Frindsbury Maldon Upchurch --ClemRutter (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parking some references 

message: With  Editor ClemRutter added this cs1 template:
:
::
In that template there are two dates:
:
:
I  a  template wondering which date is the correct date.
Editor DavidAnstiss  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  that suggests that there is or will be a  (or similar ) template placed in the body of the article.  A reader should not click  and land at Benham et al. 1986.  The dates in  and  should agree so that we don't confuse readers.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  bibliography 

message: 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)
replies: text: Two hours and three minutes searching and I have found the confirmatory reference trail. This is the source I used-  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 
...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. 
There is a small bit of reefing on the mainsail of :File:SB Edith May 4726.JPG and the reefing points are visible on the foresail. So I think we can say that the word reefing is safe. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See Brail, isn't that exactly what you are talking about? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reefing on stackies 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Time to be bold 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: 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)
replies: text: Section 1, Build & rigging, first paragraph, last sentence, which links to the article on leeboards, as does that. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leeboards 

message: Hi - I spotted this in the text:
From 1809 to 1930 EW Cooke made a series of engravings of barges on the river, leaving a record of all the possible rigs.[9]
I checked and EW Cooke's dates are 27 March 1811 – 4 January 1880.
What should be changed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaffer206 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  EW Cooke