HMS Kellington
Printed From: BMPT Forum
Category: General Discussion
Forum Name: Where Are Those Boats Now
Forum Description: Tell everybody where those old boats are
URL: http://www.bmpt.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=415
Printed Date: 26 March 2026 at 10:17pm
Topic: HMS Kellington
Posted By: northeastuser
Subject: HMS Kellington
Date Posted: 08 September 2007 at 3:45pm
|
A Few days ago I had the opportunity to board and look around the Ton class vessel HMS Kellington. This vessel is the sister ship to HMS Brodington. Thought perhaps you guys may be interested in a few pictures.
|
Replies:
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 08 September 2007 at 3:46pm
|
mm nice greenery!
------------- |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 08 September 2007 at 3:48pm
|
ohhh nice engines!!! mmm need a bit of a re-paint!
------------- |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 08 September 2007 at 3:49pm
|
four gens sets aboard!
------------- |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 08 September 2007 at 3:50pm
 ------------- |
Posted By: johnk
Date Posted: 08 September 2007 at 4:55pm
|
Just seen pictures above, what a ship! what a shame she has been let go, hope "something" can be done, could be a great resource for the area, yes, it will need a lot of hardwork but worth it I think, still with engines and gen sets, as I said, hope "something" by the elusive "someone" can do something!.
JohnK |
Posted By: Pioneer
Date Posted: 10 September 2007 at 10:14pm
|
According to a recent post in Ships Nostalgia - she is now land locked due to a road bridge being built - also that the local Sea Cadets are not allowed near her due to asbestos being on board ------------- Pioneer - Forum Moderator |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 10 September 2007 at 11:35pm
|
Yes I heard that as well.The reality is a bit more complex. Lots and lots of vandal damage to add to the mix. I expect we will have a date to dismantle in the next few months. ------------- |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 17 September 2007 at 3:38pm
The latest estimate to scrap the "Kellington" up on the river Tees is around £250.000 which seems a bit high bearing in mind the value of the equipment and low magnetic signature metals she has on board, the Sea Cadet's own her but have no money and at this moment nobody else has the inclination to get involved in preserving or even scrapping her which is going to be difficult in her present location, as somebody who has worked on the Ton Class in the past I went aboard when she first arrived, she was complete and in full working order barring that they could not start the main engines as they are difficult and you have to go through a proceedure otherwise they can throw a rod through the engine casing, she was only on loan to the Sea Cadets at that time, unfortunatly it was kept stumm by certain parties about the fact that when the Tees barrage had been completed the Navy would not be able to get her back in one piece as the side lock is too small and has a bend in it before entering through the gates she was sold to the Sea Cadet's by default who had no money to maintain such a large old wooden boat or have her cleared of asbestos and is now in a sad state as per neu photo,s. A lesson in biting off more than you can chew for everybody even an Organisation like the Sea Cadets never mind an individual when it comes to old wooden boat's it's all down to MONEYand lot's of it.
|
Posted By: marksaab
Date Posted: 17 September 2007 at 9:18pm
|
I take it her engines are Napier Deltics? Wonder if the PF Nasty guys would be interested? Dont see her being worth much in scrap..maybe the £250K was what someone would charge the council/sea cadets to get rid of her! Its certainly wont be easy...just mention asbestos and everyone will think about the ghost fleet scrapping just a few mile from where she is, look at all the grief that caused!!! ------------- Only yield when you must, never "give up the ship," but fight on to the last "with a stiff upper lip!" |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 18 September 2007 at 3:30pm
yes her engines are Napier Deltics, bearing in mind China's demand for all metals and scrap prices going up through the roof she may now be worth a lot more! Able might scrap her(Ghost Ships) or the same company that scrapped 2772E. They could just leave it to the "travelling folk" they would have it "rendered to produce" in no time
|
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 24 September 2007 at 7:39pm
|
So Tramontana do you know (out of curiosity) what size vessels can fit the locks and past the barrage? ------------- |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 25 September 2007 at 6:19pm
| neu, if you are thinking of getting the Kellington through the Barrage side lock forget it, if you have a drive to the barrage you will see what I mean about the little kink on the up river side of the lock, whilst you are there the barrage keepers will give you the info you want including max height, Tons have a high freeboard plus super -structure compared to what is underwater which is why they rolled on wet grass. It is a shame but British Waterways want her gone before she she sinks, so if you wanted to buy her your option is to scrap her as they "own" the river from the Barrage to it's source and it is highly unlikely that they will lower the river level because of the riverside developments that are now in place. |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 26 September 2007 at 10:28am
|
No don’t be silly. I was just wondering if a 40ft seaplane tender would fit up past the barrage. ------------- |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 26 September 2007 at 6:35pm
neu,Why didn't you say so I thought it was yet another boat you had put your name on as I had heard that a Warboat preservation group had been looking around it and when I saw the photo's I thought it could only be you and I was trying to help you, to get a S.T. through the lock it has to be able to float first and from what I have seen most of the floating one's are in good hands and they are unlikely to part with them after all the work they have done to get them to float. British Waterways are getting very fussy what they allow on the river that is why they want rid of the Kellington and are in the process of a clear up unless you had a boat on the river before they took over, I understand they have given those owner's a target date to conform to B.W. standards.
|
Posted By: wheelspanner
Date Posted: 26 September 2007 at 7:21pm
| bearing in mind that this site is about the kellington and you have asked for drawings of the Ton Class and submitted photo's of her NEU, I like tramontana assumed you were refering to the kellington, what this site does not need is sarcastic people like you when someone is genuinly trying to help. I hope other's will learn from this matter when you want information in the future and think twice about giving you genuine help |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 26 September 2007 at 8:43pm
|
Anyone involved with the kellington would have done their homework and already discussed and dismissed various options like going out via the barrage locks. Yes when I was asking for ton class plans I was referring to the Kellington. Is that a problem?I just thought you guys would be interested in the pics,(and you are, or you'd not be here looking) nothing else in it. Sorry you feel like iv been sarcastic wheelspanner.. Though id like to know why my comments are sarcasm and others are humour. For instance I could have easily considered the suggestion that I would try and get such a large vessel out via the locks as sarcasm. I did not, I assumed it was light hearted banter,like tramontana's next reply regarding Seaplane Tenders. What is your problem Wheelspaner?why the personal attack?perhaps youd like to put your name to it as well? Regarding personal hep I can count the people on one hand who have even tried to do that (thank you again). They are fast becoming out numbered on this site by people who’d rather snip or make personal attacks. The way things are going on this forum it will end up with just armchair critics and people who won’t put their name to their profile. Enough to put off any newbie. Yes I know that I (like everyone else) have the option to leave if I don’t like it. For now I’m happy to stay and see what happens. But I will think twice about putting up interesting pictures or news. ------------- |
Posted By: marksaab
Date Posted: 26 September 2007 at 10:41pm
|
Hi Billy Keep posting mate! Not sure what wheelspinner sorry "spanner" was on about Hope to see more from you soon! Regards Mark ------------- Only yield when you must, never "give up the ship," but fight on to the last "with a stiff upper lip!" |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 26 September 2007 at 10:54pm
|
cheers mark.Perhaps im being a bit 'touchy'. On a lighter note has anyone Halo 3..omg how cool!!.my stepson just handed my my a**e on a plate!.I'm going to 'train' while he's at school and get my own back tomorow. ------------- |
Posted By: dgray
Date Posted: 27 September 2007 at 12:56am
|
Hi WheelSpanner, NEU is thinking of buying a ST from me so his request about what size vessels can fit the locks and past the barrage wasn't sarcastic (nor was it even directed at you). As the lock was being talked about here, it seems a reasonable place to ask those in the know as they are watching this forum. No offence intended but suggesting that others re-consider giving advice to a regular member because you misunderstand a conversation two regular senior members is definitely "what this site does not need". Like I said, no offence intended as I'm sure it was an honest misunderstanding on your part. ------------- Don Only a number, not even a name. How shall posterity hear of thy fame? |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 27 September 2007 at 8:33am
|
Thanks Don for stepping forwards and explaining my comment re the tender. I didn’t feel it appropriate to say too much about the tender as its your private business. I try not to discus the business of others in public. ------------- |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 27 September 2007 at 2:38pm
| neu, as wheelspanner said this page subject is about the kellington and I was under the same impression, I object strongly to a person telling me " don't be silly", all you had to say was that you were interested because you may want get another boat through but your comment was obviously a bit of "point scoring" because of my support of Clive shipping S32 around to England rather than attempting to sail it like you were proposing to do with the "Ambra" , I thought it was not only silly but downright dangerous bearing in mind your admitted lack of experience in boat repair and passage making, I had the good manners not to put my thoughts in print as this is not a forum to offend other members by calling them silly but to share experience of the danger's of water's obviously unknown to you when they genuinely thought they were helping you as with the kellington. Other members may not be fully aware of the kellington saga. |
Posted By: Pioneer
Date Posted: 27 September 2007 at 2:52pm
|
Gentlemen I do think that further of this so called 'point scoring' should be made within the Private Messenger facility As I see it a 'statement' was made an 'answer' was given an 'apology' was made - surely, end of story? To continue with this bickering does not further any cause. ------------- Pioneer - Forum Moderator |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 27 September 2007 at 3:11pm
|
In what way was telling me that a 150 odd foot vessel wont go through the locks next to the barrage as not insulting? don’t you think it would have been logical for the MOD to reclaim the kellington that way if possible? I’m sorry but I did not detect any element of help in insulting my intelligence. However I took it in good humour. Your answer that I would need a seaplane tender that floats and would be unlikely to get one could have also have been taken as insulting.(did that aply to me personaly or to everyone on teh planet?) However I realise that the written word does not convey expressions very well so just assumed it was an attempt at humour. Regarding points scoring. Now that is funny, at this moment in time I cant really remember what preference you have regarding Clive’s vessel. Giving the circumstances I believe Clive’s decision to be the best he could have made. Feel free to show me where I ever stated different and I will explain what I may have meant. I have no ill will against you or anyone else on this forum, however I must say that your idea of points scoring is something that I take no part in. Its obviously very important to you to bring it up. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the current score? Regarding others on this forum helping me with the kellington? Who was that exactly. Apart from a source of plans no one has said anything to help here. Or perhaps you would like to point it out as I obviously missed it. As far as I was aware the only chat here has been general regarding the kellington. That was all that was expected and the only reason I posted the pictures. If you would like to enlighten everyone on the kellington feel free to do so. I am not in a position to able to speak openly at this time. Sorry if you were offended at me saying not to be silly.Im sorry if you have a problem with me, I dont have one with you. ------------- |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 27 September 2007 at 4:40pm
| Agreed |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 27 September 2007 at 4:41pm
| Agreed pioneer |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 27 September 2007 at 5:03pm
| pioneer, As I have previously stated I agree but you cannot expect members not to "fire back" when in a genuine attempt to help someone they are told "Don't be Silly" on an open forum when as you say there is a p. m. available. |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 27 September 2007 at 5:10pm
|
I also agree with you Pioneer. From my point of view I encounter a few statements directed at me that could be taken several ways. Normally I will just assume the best was meant. However if someone makes a direct attack at me in public I will defend myself in public. All I can suggest is that you seriously consider banning all concerned. Myself also. Tremonton I am deeply sorry that things have turned out the way they have and that you feel the way that you do. I assure you that I hold you no ill will and have no problem with you or anyone else on this forum. You have my apology if I have caused you any discomfort or offence. If anything happens with the kellington or any other vessel than I have any involvement in then you are more than welcome to come aboard. ------------- |
Posted By: Pioneer
Date Posted: 27 September 2007 at 5:24pm
|
As you all quite rightly understand - this is a Discussion Forum. I am sure that it is also understood that if comment is made that is taken exception too - when any misconception is explained - especially if given with an apology -that for most reasonable persons should be the end of that particular matter - however if the feathers are so ruffled that the apology will not suffice - then by all means continue with the discussion - but in the PM facilty. It is not in the interests of anyone, especially the BMPT site, to allow the continuance of a spat. Offensive posts WILL be removed ------------- Pioneer - Forum Moderator |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 27 September 2007 at 5:33pm
|
The problem with removing offensive posts is that if you don’t get in there quick enough then any posts made in response are out of context and only serve to make the responding poster sound offensive. So then you end up removing them all and censoring a disagreement! I don't want your job!It must feel like your looking after a buch of kids at times Oh iv gone and confused myself now! ------------- |
Posted By: Pioneer
Date Posted: 27 September 2007 at 6:24pm
|
Nail on Head comes to mind ------------- Pioneer - Forum Moderator |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 26 February 2008 at 4:15pm
|
Hi Folks First I am new to the board, Still nice and squeeky clean :-) second I see from posts here that the K seems to generate a rather coulorfull discusion. The Kellington is moored just up the road from me and I was amazed at the intentions to scrap her. I will be honest I only knew about this last week ( Thursday to be acurate) Since then I have been delving into information on her and the present possition. I just wondered what the general consensus of the people here have on the ship. Should we allow it to be scrapped? Mysellf do not believe we should. What can be done to stop this? I myself run a small Nautical History Society and am always against scrapping of ships or boats that do not need to be, Personally I have not been given any reason why this ship needs scrapping, if anything it is the oposite. I will now wait for any reply and if any one wants to have a go at me it may as well be today as it seems it is my day for it. Nice site by way Graham |
Posted By: Pioneer
Date Posted: 26 February 2008 at 4:49pm
|
Hello 'Graham01' - Welcome aboard and enjoy the trip. As you probably have read, this Ship has generated some interest (of the verbal kind Rgds ------------- Pioneer - Forum Moderator |
). I personally have not seen her but I understand that she is now 'locked' in and unable to be moved except within the confines of a short stretch of water. It will be very sad but I do think that her future looks doubtful - maybe your 'posting' will generate some new interest.Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 26 February 2008 at 5:00pm
|
Hi Pioneer Thanks for the welcome, Yes unfortunatly the ship is landlocked. The ship itsellf is reported to be in a bad way and has been expressed as been " Condemned " the interesting thing I am finding is the condition seems to be over reported as to that. That is my honest opinion at the moment. I have not been to it recently I have to admit. I am at the moment in talks with some people who like mysellf hope it can be saved in some way. My own feeling is basicaly if the ship CAN be saved we have to try. If the main streem accounts are correct and she CANNOT be saved unfortunatly that is that and the powers to be I am sure will get there own way. I truly hope that the former will happen and she will be saved and given a home where she is or somewhere safe. Landlocked as I am sure you and others know does not mean it is locked there totaly. I have been told ( and I cannot quantify if this is correct or not) that it is small enough transport by other means, And I am sure that will be a prety penny. So realy the options is to find a good use for her where she is. A museum comes to mind. There has to be some way that heritage is preserved not just cast aside for modern ideas. Again thanks for the welcome and hope to speek again soon Graham |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 26 February 2008 at 6:02pm
|
very easy to get carried away with this sort of thing graham.But who knows what may happen. Billy. ------------- |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 26 February 2008 at 6:16pm
|
Hi Billy This is true my friend, After today anything is possible. The thing is it is do'able providing the backing and desire is there. What astounds me and in a way frightens me is the fact people of the local area who my friend has spoke to are actually frightend by newspaper reports of toxisity and dangers which is reported. I am also astounded that no one apears to of realy spoke out for her in a formal way. ( I do understand that certain people have been working behind the scene etc.) Another opiece of very interesting reading is the Hansard report going back to 20th Oct 1998. You can find it by a google. But I have a copy. As you say though Billy it is very easy to get carried away and ahead of oneself, But yes lets see what happens. Talk soon my friend Graham |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 26 February 2008 at 6:46pm
|
Hello Graham01, the problem with Kellington is asbestos, unlike the old days when the Sea Cadets were loaned Fairmile D's for the long term most of if not all of the enginerooms had been stripped out, the loan of Kellington was initially a short term as the Navy wanted it back and her engineroom was complete when she arrived but her main engines were disabled, however her genny's were runnable as the boat did not and still does not have shore power so closing the engineroom will mean no lighting, because the boat was for public use (Sea Cadets and other youth bodies) the Health and Safety people put a stopper on using it. It is as Pioneer said locked in the river as nobody told the Navy that they could not take it back to sea once the Barrage was completed which is how the Sea Cadets come to buy it so cheaply. Unfortunatly they had no funds to maintain her and she fell into disrepair, that along with vandalism has made her into a sorry state for a once proud Warship and the whole episode has soured Sea Cadet relations with the R.N. which are not helped by a local M.P. who is blaming the whole thing on the Navy. Can it be saved? given that it will take a lot of money and grants with marine preservation seeming to be at the bottom of the pile as members of this Forum who have boats have found out it is unlikely, meanwhile the arguement rages as to who is going to pay for its scrapping and bearing in mind the new riverside developements that are cropping up where are they going to do it given the boats restricted movement on the river.
|
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 26 February 2008 at 7:24pm
|
Hi Tramontana An interesting screen name by the way, Is it from the wind orr sports car? I digress I apologise Yes I understand the main problem to be the asbestos (brown) I understand. and this of course became a problem due to the reason you state, ( Engine room not striped out like most others). As for the great stories of how it became to be, well one has to sort of smirk a bit if it was not such a trauma in the end. The whole issue of the H&S still puzzles me though. I have made contact with many people over the past few days, Well actually been at computer now continuous for around 10 to 12 hours a day gaining information on this ship and people. Now what I have gathered so far is 1/ No one appears to of seen the H&S report. and 2/ The only explination I have been given regarding the H&S report was in fact for her gang plank which was in a bad state of repair. The next bit of the puzzle apears to be reports on the overall condition of the ship. Then local papers are reporting as I am sure you as well as others know that the ship is in immideate danger of sinking. This does not match up to the report I have been allowed to see. The vandalism of the ship seems awfully by what I have been told selective. And I am not saying anything by that before I am accused of anything. But again I have to stress I have not seen the ship for a long time. I can see the view point of the RN, and after speaking to a high ranking official there today by phone can understand there reluctance to help. As for the local MP well I better not say much about that but I personaly feel after events today that he has his own adgenda somewhere. (One hopes that does not constitute Liable). On to your closing points can it be saved? Agreed it will take a lot and I mean a lot of cash by grants and sponsorship. This has been done before for other ships. Ok people will start to quote big name ships like the recent Noronic , which I was part of at the time of fund raising. It is amazing how popular a ship can be when sold correctly. I do understand that marine preservation is always last on the high list of funding. Something I have not seen yet or heard of is a fesability study as to costs for and against. I am sure somewhere bean counters are still playing with there abacuses, The figure which is still been bounded about for scrapping the K is £25,000 raising if it should founder. ( That is a rather interesting point as the same MP who is worried about it sinking at its birth stated to the lords it was and quote "The sea cadets in Stockton are based on HMS Kellington, a counter mines warefair vessel that is somewhat redundant and has been in the river tees for well over ten years-- it is grounded on the bottom. it is kept in good order........" Source the Hansard Debate 20th Oct 1998 Column 1140. As to where will it be scrapped should it be the only answer? I am not too sure on that again I have seen or read something on this but will not place here as I do not have that to hand in order to offer a source. If it is going to cost lets say for arguments sake the £25,000 to scrap how much will it cost to do up? To a safe standard not a sea worthy standard. ( as l;ets face it where is it going to sail if left where it is?) Of course the poor old K is indeed in the way for many reasons. The riverside development is just one of such things. What was the navys moto " if it moves nail it down, if it dont paint it" Alderman Vaughne said just that in a news report, well actuall he just said it needed a lick of paint. At least the old town mare of I think it was 1992/3 seems to have more open mindedness than todays. I think I have covered everything there and apology for going on. Thanks for the reply Graham
|
Posted By: johnk
Date Posted: 26 February 2008 at 7:42pm
|
Hi there,
Just read all the posts re Kellington, not much to add really, take it you referred to Nomadic, swear the type gets scrambled albiet I can't spell for toffee, I am a member of this crowd and dose show what can be achieved. I will take a lot of determination, effort, and some cash to sort her. Of course there is the Bronnington about but in poor shape I believe, bit odd given one commander heir to the throne, then again royal involvement in Mary Rose and Cutty Sark I have no doubt a big help. Really don't know what more to say, I can only say if you believe it to be worth having a go, then do so, much info here and elsewhere, mostly might say don't touch with a barge pole!, but then, we would have nothing if no one tride.
Johnk |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 26 February 2008 at 8:01pm
|
Hi Johnk Whoops yes I did mean the Nomadic " eyes googled me thinks :-) ) but yes after just re-reading my last post think that the type does get scrambled :-) someone will point me to a spell checker I am sure soon :-) I have to agree the main area in anything like this is interest, then of course as you say determination effort and that horrible part where people run money. I agree there is the Bronnington yes, and by again what I have read elswhere parts from the K have been offered to the Bronnington. Not sure what parts or if the offer was taken up and of course I may be totaly wrong. I do side with you when you say one cannot be king over the other, simple sconomics will in the end of day determine if both one or neither are saved I supose, but who knows if the interest and determination is there for both well the world is a big place. I do believe at moment it is worth the effort and work so lets hope something can be done Graham |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 26 February 2008 at 9:36pm
| The name is after a superb powerboat which went like the wind, although you may not know of her by your comments and the fact that you are "new" to the Forum, I also live 500ft above sea level, although fortunatly below cloud level, interesting comments you make I feel as if I have heard them before somehow, as far as I am aware the cost to scrap her is £250,000 because of the difficulties in regards to her location and the equipment required to do it. Having been involved in another project which required and obtained lottery funding you will have an uphill task on this one bearing in mind the background, still good luck to you and your little group which I have not come across, n.e.u. is the best person to advise you when it comes to boats and funding as he has "had hands on experience |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 26 February 2008 at 10:24pm
|
Well all make mistakes tramontana. Hopefully some of us lean by them. I'm sure graham will too. somethings are just practice for the real fight. The only advice I can give to anyone seeking funding or looking to get an old boat is (ignoring the obvious mental health check!) prudance discretion patience and perciverance. ------------- |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 6:55am
| graham1,Because of this boats background any person/s who want to preserve her will have to have proof of funding in place first and a viable business plan to go with it as the local council who own the quay it is moored alongside are concerned that they may be left with disposing of a stripped out hull, in today's rising scrap prices the non-ferrous metals onboard are starting to look increasingly attractive to the ne'er do well's and previous scrapping of Ton class boats on the Tees some years ago did cause enviroment problems when the people concerned did a bunk. I am presuming you live near n.e.u. on the "Barbary Coast" as by your similiar style of composition you could be his mirror image. |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 8:52am
|
Hi Tramontana Sorry for the delay in answering these mails, I was hopeing to reply first thing this morning but a early meeting stoped me. In your first message and I hope you dont mind me quoting in the following way with "***" way as I am used to this type of reply, anyway in your first message you say: "The name is after a superb powerboat which went like the wind, although you may not know of her by your comments and the fact that you are "new" to the Forum, " I was close then, I did say after the wind or a sport car, So I supose a speed boat that goes like the wind is darn close :-) And as you so correctly point out I do not know of it. But it sounds great . "interesting comments you make I feel as if I have heard them before somehow,". I apologise if I may of repeted them or do you mean by someone else? "as far as I am aware the cost to scrap her is £250,000 because of the difficulties in regards to her location and the equipment required to do it." That is the general consensus that I have seen so far. That comes from many newspaper reports which we all know are always acurate:-) and texts placed in various places including documents at Govt. Level. ( see previous source on Hansard for one such place). "Having been involved in another project which required and obtained lottery funding you will have an uphill task on this one bearing in mind the background, " Ermm sorry can you clarify that point for me, do you mean you yoursellf was involved or me? If you mean me then yes I understand where you are coming from from the source I mentioned in previous post again, I actually only used the Nomadic as a "for instance" Although I was involved with her throughout my main part was from stage one. Although I have done many other ships which like the K is not elligable for a lottery grant, Pluss I have a problem with the lottery grant which I would freely speak off in PM not on board. I do agree it will be a uphill struggle, Funding projects always is,weather it is spending allready obtained budgets and allocated funds or finding the first elusive 1p. Plus again as you so correctly state the background of this one though not unique is prominent. "still good luck to you and your little group which I have not come across," Thank you for your good luck message here, as to the later bit of me and my little group may I ask what group you mean? Do you mean the Society or the proposed "save the K" group. Or just mysellf in general. "n.e.u. is the best person to advise you when it comes to boats and funding as he has "had hands on experience " Thank you again for the advise and yes so I am led to believe. I will answer your second post in a sepearate post if that is ok as not to make yet another "epic" post :-) Graham |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:09am
|
Hi Northeastuser Again I hope you dont mind me replying in my usuall way. You say in your post two up fronm this one I think it is. "Well all make mistakes tramontana. Hopefully some of us lean by them. I'm sure graham will too." Ok I am at a disadvantage now as I am not too sure what you mean by that comment. Unfortunatly I have over the years learned a lot from past mistakes which sometimes cost a lot, others just pride or face.But yes I agree we should all learn from them . "somethings are just practice for the real fight." That is a very interesting comment, as yes sometimes it is. Though again I am at a bit of a disadvantage as I am not too sure what or who you direct that to. "The only advice I can give to anyone seeking funding or looking to get an old boat is (ignoring the obvious mental health check!)prudance,discretion,patience and perciverance." I had to smile at the first part given to wether you know me or not. but as to the others I totaly agree and well said. Graham |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:22am
|
Hi Again Tramontana, In reply to your second post. "Because of this boats background any person/s who want to preserve her will have to have proof of funding in place first and a viable business plan to go with it" I agree whole hearted with you. This would be the case in most cases with the exception of a very few. ( Hull Marina comes to mind here ). as for the preservation costs I would leave that to the people who do it for a living. "as the local council who own the quay it is moored alongside are concerned that they may be left with disposing of a stripped out hull," I can well understand the position of the Local Council on this matter, then again at the moment that is exactly what they have now. "in today's rising scrap prices the non-ferrous metals onboard are starting to look increasingly attractive to the ne'er do well's and previous scrapping of Ton class boats on the Tees some years ago did cause enviroment problems when the people concerned did a bunk." Again this is so true, The unfortunate thing is and we go back to one of my very first concerns when I was made aware of the position is security. Unfortunatly that is laxing now for some strange reason and I see no reason why they would alter that regardless who owned the vessel. And on your second point yes indeed over the years a right hoop har has been made of issues in the past. "I am presuming you live near n.e.u. on the "Barbary Coast" as by your similiar style of composition you could be his mirror image. " Yep aparently so, Although I am not from round this part of the woods originaly, I take it then with mirror image you mean the exact oposit? Graham |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 10:06am
|
The mistakes comment was directed at my self. There was a time when id jump feet first into any old boat project knowing full well that it was the ‘one’. That funding would just be automatic, due to the importance of my ‘find’. Guess you learn quick when it comes to old boats. At least the experience opens your eyes and prepares you for the reality of the situation. I hope. I know where your coming from about the mirror image Tremontana. Was I really like that? That ‘enthusiastic’ But I have never met graham and have no idea where he’s from. ------------- |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 10:12am
|
Hi Northeastuser Thanks for that I was just a bit unsure when I read it, then again it was about 4am this morning:-) and I was getting ready for my first meeting of the day at around 5-6am I agree I think we have all been there, It is suprising and thaughts and sayings come to mind, "One mans junk is another mans wealth"etc. But when we see wealth they all see junk and no money is forethcoming. For the record, I was born in Scarborough but moved to Hull as a baby. Lived 19 years in Hull moved to Bridlington then Scarborough then Middlesbrough. One day I shall start the car and hopefully end up in Scotland :-) Graham |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 5:39pm
|
Kellington is far from a stripped out wreck, she was complete when she came as I was invited aboard as former Ton Class crew in the 50's. Since then bits have been taken off her because due to the Asbestos the Police have been stopped from going on board for H&S reasons, thieves don't bother with such minor details. Scarborough is a great place we went there every year with our motor cruiser in the late 40's early 50's and moored alongside Vincent Pier opposite the Hispaniola, Peter Jaconelli the former Mayor was my Father's interpreter in Italy whilst he was there during WW2 before going into France, our ice creams were always free In regards to Hull marina there is a boat there called John Vincent which I believe is the same type as T4, she was my Uncle's old boat (then called Lady Margaret) and went with us to Scarborough mooring next to the Sea Cadet Fairmile D.
|
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 6:14pm
|
HI Tramontana I agree the K is far from stripped out or so I am led to believe, As far as I know she was the only Ton claass lent to the Cadets that had engines, the rest where removed whereas the K was just disabled. Sounds right regarding the police, never thaught of that little thing:-) Scarborough was a great place yes, Unfortunatly now the undesirables have caught up with it, Not sure if you have been recent but I for one would not go back there to live. My family all had there business in Scarborough with the last one closing down a few years ago. And also the fact of my uncles death closed the remaining one. Peter Jaconelli was a great family friend among with his brother Ernie. Peter always said he got my mother and father together as my dad was a swimmer there and held the cup for the castle swim for many years. I dont know if you attended his funeral ( Peter's I mean) but if you did we may of met. And like you I as well as my family always got free ice creams from both brothers with the question who's was best? Dont know the boat but I will be in Hull in the next week or so and may get chance to pop over to the Marina. If she is there will take a look. Regards Graham |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 10:34pm
| No I did not attend Peter's funeral we lost contact when my Father died many years ago and our boat was sold, although I did pop in when I was in Scarborough with my children when they were young. The John Vincent if she is there is easy to spot she has the hull profile of T4 wine glass stern with a large rudder post and varnished topsides she is still how she looked over 50yrs ago, I am after photo's of scarborough harbour in the early 50's if you know of any especially with the Fairmile D on. |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 9:36am
|
Hi Tramontana No problem as I say if you had attended we may of met , then again prob would not of remebered each other anyway :-) I will make sure I look for the John Vincent when next in Hull. If I manage it will take some photo's and send you them if you want. On Scarborough, I have some photo's of Scarborough but fear they are a lot earlier than the 50s. We used to have tea chests full of them but alas they where "Misplaced" by a certain Bridlington removal Co. Among with most of our library at the time. Amongst which contained 4 large old leather suit cases full of nothing more than old post cards. ( as per usuall a misplaced item is not found) but I have a name of a guy in Who is a historian in Scarborough, I will dig it out for you I think he has a e-mail address as well he will help he is a genuine person who shares info, not one of the stuffy ones who wont. I will try to dig it out for you later thios morning and post it here for you. Graham |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 11:01am
| graham, it would be handy if you could get some decent photo's of "John Vincent" and put them on this site on the T4 section for T4 to have a look at and compare bow and stern profiles, I think the Scarborough FairmileD had gone by 1955 so the harbour photo's I am after are before then but after the War. The Owner of John Vincent is called Brian a nice chap whom I first met when he owned "Pembroke Puffin" a broad beam seaplane tender some years ago and I had a trip out on her. Like yourself sharing info is what it is all about for me I start to "Feather" my safety valves with people wanting all the information you have but appear when you ask to be reluctant to share theirs. Do the older members of your family remember Jack Ellis the owner of the old "Caronia", Ron. |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 11:24am
|
Hi Ron I will certainly do so the next time I am in Hull. As I say I hope to be going there in the next few weks, but as they say plans etc. The name I promised I am still loking for, it is a few years ago since I spoke with him and his details apear to be on a old computer HDD but I will dig it out. I do know he used to do a lot for the Scarborough History Society. There on the net. Also for Scarborough Library, Again there history section. He also wrote a book on early Scarborough. The only thing missing is his name and contact details but I will find them. I will ask my mother about Jack Ellis, My other relatives in Scarborough I do not see as much as I should now but one will I feel sure know him, Aunt Rene knew everyone. I mysellf remeber the old Coronia but sadly not the owner. I will keep scouting for the details and any pictures I can find in my own collection, as I say most was lost unfortunatly. Graham |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 06 March 2008 at 10:13pm
|
The special 'K' is now on Youtube! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=syE3-A2g7Vo - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=syE3-A2g7Vo
------------- |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 07 March 2008 at 3:06pm
| The scrapping cost for "K" has now gone up to £300,000, the boat itself is not really the problem it can be repaired and the asbestos removed. They were built with a removable engineroom top for engine changing which if I remember was done afloat on a "Ton" in the Suez Canal many years ago, the problem is where she is and how much it is going to cost to keep her there before even starting on a refurbishment programme of the boat itself, you would need a lot of paying customers to keep it going as any sort of Museum. Good pointer the U tube n.e.u although I am a bit puzzled as to the purpose of the shots of "K" however the Ton Class site is very nostalgic along with every Sailors favourite tune by R.S. and it shows how much the B****rs rolled. |
Posted By: clive
Date Posted: 07 March 2008 at 4:11pm
|
Am I missing something here? I thought the most ineresting part of the video was watching the man in the blue jumper reappear the other side of the ladder! well spotted all the same Billy ------------- masbie something in the water. www.freewebs.com/masb32/ |
Posted By: johnk
Date Posted: 07 March 2008 at 4:53pm
|
Well, been discussed at length before ie a static vessel, how do you get enough people through the door t maintain the vessel, been done with the paddler Tattershall Castle, though she has been butchered and is just a floating pub! looks nothing like a paddler now. I guess access would also be an issue perhaps. I really don't know, it is so fustrating the state of our marine heritage, millions for a few icon ships, and the rest either rotting, rotted away or hanging on by the skin of thier teeth! few honourable exceptions of course. Don't get me started, although I have!
Johnk |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 07 March 2008 at 5:20pm
|
HI Ron Indeed according to the Evening gazette last night the scrapping cost has raised from £250,000 to the new figure of £300,000. There is of course another interesting remark in the article. The Council seems to be blaming the RN for selling a ship in such condition. One does of course have to remember the Navy had little or no intention of selling the ship. It was only a matter that it was landlocked in its position that they agreed reluctantly to sell it at a well knock down price. And according to the Hansard debates they where lucky to get that. I do agree, as does most everyone else apart from the few people who seem hell belt on scrapping it, that the ship is not in too bad a way. As for the asbestos, according to the reports it is only on the gaskets etc. Seems to me then they have never lifted the bonnet up of a old car. Then there is the small problem of the radio active smoke detectors. Which I may add seem to of materialized from one report to the next as the first report stated no fire alarms where fitted. You have hit on the main problem in your comment about where she is how much it will cost to keep her there. It is where she will be re-furbished that is the main problem. The ideal place in many ways and for ease of logistics is where she is. Problem is keeping her there. It is not just the cost but the fact she appears not to be welcome, Then again she is only receiving negative press reports. On a side note has anyone else noticed when a picture is in the press of anyone with the K it is always in the same place, It is getting as famous as the fire place in No 10 Downing street and other dignitaries houses. (I suppose like the chocolate box cottage you could always take peoples photos in front of the K like the ones in the paperJ ) As for the museum, agreed you do need a lot of paying customers to pay for her upkeep, Then again other ideas are been bounded about. It was a interesting video on you tube, I thought when I first clicked on it I was going to see a video of the damage the girder was doing to the side, then realized it was a old video ( well maybe not that old) but the ship was or appears to be still in use. I am sure like the events the debate has a long way to run as yet. Graham |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 07 March 2008 at 5:24pm
|
Hi Johnk I agree with all you say. Most vessels seem to end there days as a floating restaurant casino or bar. Then as soon as they have made money for there owners they are scrapped. Pluss by then all fuittings have been removed and often graffiti etc has taken over what used to be highly polished areas. Unfortunatly our heritage and love affair with the sea seems to be so easiely forgoten as do all the good old ships of any class. Unless of course it is a tresure ship then it is wanted till its cargo is found. Graham
|
Posted By: johnk
Date Posted: 07 March 2008 at 6:16pm
|
Hi Graham,
Indeed, as with Tatershall Castle, stripped and generaly b...d.g.!, For £300,000 a lot could be done to secure her but..what about ongoing as discussed, some would say some sort of static us is better than nothing, I don't know, people with great brains and imagination than me hopefully will come up with something, what I don't know!. Agree, you would not think we are an island nation.
Johnk |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 07 March 2008 at 6:43pm
|
Hi Johnk Strangely enough I used to have many a good night on one of the Tatershall Castles sister ships, the Lincoln Castle. She used to be docked on hessle foreshore as a pub. Unfortunatly the owner of the time well and truly milked her and even the responce of the Hull people could not save her for the area. She now I believe is in Grimbsby where she is a restaurant. Or still undergoing repairs will have to look that one up.
indeed £300,000 would go a long way towords doing the K up. as for the ongoing expence, well that is the main problem, as yet I dont think anyone has conme up with a plan in order to go to the councill and argue there case. One of the main problems at the moment is the bad publisity it is recieving. Every bad article looses the K another group of people who where behind it. Graham |
Posted By: clive
Date Posted: 07 March 2008 at 7:22pm
|
Since the world was scaremongered into beleiving that even artex was an asbestos hazard the prices of disposal have gone up and also come way back down, for example roofing sheets can be risk assessed, double bagged and put in a approved skip for disposal by 'average Joe'. are the prices for the asbestos removal current in the market? When we removed MGB 56 from Thorpe green there was 'upset' that we had removed a local landmark! I do not know the area but if she were gutted and used as an art gallery or carrers office surely that would be better than looseing her alltogether? at least then the interest would still be there. I know of two barges used on the Chelmsford blackwater canal as offices. ------------- masbie something in the water. www.freewebs.com/masb32/ |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 07 March 2008 at 7:45pm
|
Recently vandals have removed some of the ‘K’s mooring chains, they have been replaced with rope hawsers and chains, however as this video shows she now had a worrying amount of movement and the steel framework she is resting against is now slowly ‘chewing’ its way through the hull side. The strong winds we have had today have in fact been so strong as top pivot her against the steel framework and almost slam her bows and then stern against the quay side. Well done the waterways authority on re-mooring her so well! Oh well at least the MOD has sense and wont help pay the costs of her destruction. Though I believe they are offering free advice! ------------- |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 07 March 2008 at 9:49pm
|
I am afraid the Asbestos content is a bit more than gaskets, more to do with the lagging around all the engine turbo's and exhausts with it going all the way up the stack, bearing in mind she was built in the 50's she will have Asbestos insulation throughout the boat, in regards to the anchor chain somebody in the know took that, as she is a Minesweeper her anchor chain was not steel but non ferrous a bit more valuable as scrap (she still carried them as she was only on loan initially), most probably the Navy are still a bit sore about the way they were forced into selling the boat so cheaply as they could not get her back except in a skip. johnk will confirm that the plastic version "Wilton" was stripped out and is now a yacht club headquarters on the Medway, it shows it can be done, but if they can't make the "Bronington" pay with it's Royal connection plus Stockton Council want it away from their Wharf, to save her is a difficult proposition,where is she going to go to get visitors aboard. They could put her alongside "Endeavour" if the people who run it agree as one of the last "Wooden Walls" (although she is a composite construction) but I don't think that will happen unfortunatly.
|
Posted By: johnk
Date Posted: 08 March 2008 at 7:46am
|
Hi All,
Indeed, Wilton was done on the Medway but I think now in Essex, but of course "plastic" so slightly different proposition, and of course a new use found, although heavily modified from the photos I recall. Lincoln Castle I think went as a museum to the fishing industry but as you say, not to sure. Bronnington mentioned before and quite right, if "they" can't be bothered to look after her....I am sorry that I can't offer anything positive to say, you would have thought as she is there on the waterfront she could be reclycled as a usefull community space as Clive says, with some work even getting the cadets back, if they are not to settled ashore now!.
Johnk |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 08 March 2008 at 11:37am
| In regards to "K" somewhat foolish the Sea Cadet Committee took her on without any money in the kitty to keep her maintained which is why she quickly fell into disrepair after a couple of fires with the genny's which they had to run as there is no shore power to her, it appears that the Cadets now have a shore base and have just left the mess behind, there has not been any statement from Sea Cadet Committee as it appears that they think it's all the Navy's fault for selling them the boat with asbestos aboard but have said nothing about the fact that they bought the boat Knowing there was asbestos aboard, what do they think was wrapped around the engine exhausts, Cotton Wool!!!!! I saw the Lincoln Castle at the Lowestoft Fishing Museum when I docked there many years back, the Museum was an excellent place with a talk given by a former Skipper of a Trawler used by the R.N. patrol Service for Minesweeping during WW2. A brave chap especially when the one next to him hit a mine and promptly sank in the Thames Estuary. R.B.D.G. |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 08 March 2008 at 11:47am
For Lowestoft read Grimsby of course, it was just another Port to me at the time and it was a fairly long time ago
|
Posted By: johnk
Date Posted: 08 March 2008 at 4:20pm
|
I see, would seem they would not want to get aboard again! most unfortunate, must have seemned a good idea at the time, belive there is a unit on the Thames aboard a minesweeper. Interesting re the museum, knew the Rev Melvin formely of the RNPS who tride to save the last Motor Minesweeper 191, he passed away and the vessel broken up, was in a state but...another bit the dust.
Johnk |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 09 March 2008 at 11:02am
| Johnk, if "K" had been moored at Scarborough or Whiby it would be a different matter. |
Posted By: johnk
Date Posted: 09 March 2008 at 8:20pm
|
Indeed, as it turns out, would be so much better if she was coastal, but of course they apparently built the barage post her getting there.
Johnk |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 10 March 2008 at 10:22am
Johnk, there were people involved with The Sea cadets at the time who new full well that on completion of the barrage The Navy would not be able get her back but kept schumm I am sure of that, which accounts for the Navy's attitude at the present moment in regards to giving any major practical help and confines itself to an advice basis
|
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 11 March 2008 at 8:15pm
|
I suspect that the MOD is refusing to help dismantle the ‘k’ as there’s is simply nothing wrong with her. The surveys I have seen have highlighted issued that need to be dealt with but they have been further interpreted by people who should know better. Anyone with half a brain cell can see that any problems have been blown up out of proportion. An example is radioactive material/paint in a fire detection system. This system happens to be current royal navy specs and still in use in her majesty’s vessels. Are we to scrap all of them as well? Asbestos? What you mean more than in most of the countries schools? Of course the MOD has read the surveys and realised its all scare mongering. If the ‘k’ really was in danger of going down I think the MOD government would have stepped in and done something. ------------- |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 11 March 2008 at 9:48pm
|
As far as I am aware the M.O.D. view "K" as a privately owned boat and are not prepared to spend Taxpayers money on it bearing in mind the tight budget due to the problems in the Middle East, the people with the 1/2 a brain cell were the people who took on a boat without any money to keep it going, if you had brought the Irvine pinnace over and moored it on the Tees and had no money to keep it going and walked away from it the M.P. who is doing the shouting would be the first to say it has nothing to do with the Taxpayer as it is a privately owned boat and the responsibilty of the Owner. The reason why I mentioned the I950's build was because asbestos was extensively used as an insulation material like schools and houses, it is fine unless it is disturbed which is the problem as I understand it, the same applies to the fire system which has been wrecked. As she was not properly de-commissioned like the "D"'s her underwater orifices have not been blanked off properly on the outside for extended lay up, although I agree the sinking story is scaremongering by the previously mentioned M.P. the fact remains that even if she was bought by a preservation group there is nowhere to take her out of the water if future problem's occur below the water line and beyond the scope of a Diver, as I have said previously it is not so much the boat but where she is located and the limitations that could give problems for a preservation attempt. |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 12 March 2008 at 12:19pm
|
HI
My apology for the disapearing act and I will go back through the thread and answer posts. As a side note, if anyone is good at rugby or wants to practice there drop kick technique, I have a computer ready to visit the Keel of the K, Northeastuser says: “I suspect that the MOD is refusing to help dismantle the ‘k’ as there’s is simply nothing wrong with her.” I agree with you here, By what I have been told the MOD is in fact more than willing to help in other areas if uses can be found for her. As you so correctly say the MOD even is not in the habit of scrapping a good ship. “The surveys I have seen have highlighted issued that need to be dealt with but they have been further interpreted by people who should know better. Anyone with half a brain cell can see that any problems have been blown up out of proportion.” I again have to agree with you, Some of the names banded about who have supposedly read the reports should of known we are looking at minor defects, ( I will refrain from using words like Cosmetic as I know it is a bit more than that.) . It also seems strange the same MP who is fighting to scrap her opened the Hoverton works up the other day by cutting the first piece of steel. On one hand he is apparently fighting to bring jobs and industry back then on the other he is not looking at any way this can be done with the K. “Of course the MOD has read the surveys and realized its all scare mongering” As has anyone else who reads it fully. But certain quarters need the people behind them in order to get rid of it, What with the Ghost ship scare etc what better way than using toxicity to frighten the public in demanding that she be taken away or scrapped. Any one know what the legality is of printing the reports in the media? I suspect the legal situation on the Government would be, if the K was in a serious position of either sinking or releasing toxicity into the water or air, then they would jump in and send a bill to the owner. Or they would foot the cost if need be. |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 12 March 2008 at 12:44pm
|
HI Tramontana Apology for not answering your posts earlier in here, had a few tech probs with the Computers. But back on line again now. “As far as I am aware the M.O.D. view "K" as a privately owned boat and are not prepared to spend Taxpayers money on it bearing in mind the tight budget due to the problems in the Middle East,” I think this hits the proverbial nail on the head. But apparently what they are prepared to do is listen to any plans and help if they can. They are going to need true facts and figures, Possible uses etc etc etc. I think but not sure, that if anyone has read the regeneration project budgets the K can be built into this. And no the budget is not depleted this year as a certain housing association would have us believe. In fact the truth apparently is that the budget is still near 2 1/3 unspent. But this is another story and argument. “the people with the 1/2 a brain cell were the people who took on a boat without any money to keep it going,” How true I suspect when it was done it was a ego not brain decision, But in reality it has stayed around to bite the bottom . And in reality it was made by people who should know far better. “if you had brought the Irvine pinnace over and moored it on the Tees and had no money to keep it going and walked away from it the M.P. who is doing the shouting would be the first to say it has nothing to do with the Taxpayer as it is a privately owned boat and the responsibilty of the Owner.” Again how true, This is why the same MP is trying to get public following to scrap it, The only way he can do this is by the scare monger tactic which is apparent. This in a way is why I keep saying why is there no counter media for the K? The story is been kept alive by what can almost be described as a loop article. It re-appears at a rate now faster than most stories’. “although I agree the sinking story is scaremongering by the previously mentioned M.P. the fact remains that even if she was bought by a preservation group there is nowhere to take her out of the water if future problem's occur below the water line and beyond the scope of a Diver,” I tend to agree here, That is why in the long term any plan has to eventually take the K out of the water and put her back in a place she is not land locked. For the shorter term a reason not to scrap has to be found. G |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 12 March 2008 at 6:49pm
|
The truth is though the Kellington is NOT privately owned.She is owned by a charity on behalf of others.A charity that had funds of 36k at the end of 2005. In the shorter term,scrapping the K may just be illegal! ------------- |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 13 March 2008 at 10:37am
| At the latest meeting, the M.O.D. re-stated that as far as THEY were concerned "K" is a privately owned boat ( AS IN NOT OWNED BY THE TAXPAYER). However, they are prepared to allow their Company "Salmo" to oversea the scrappin of the vessel and it would appear that "Able" ( of American Reserve Ship Scrapping) will be involved in regards to the disposal of all materials. The plan is to reduce her topside height enough to get her under the bridge and into an area between the bridge and the Barrage to Reduce her to produce) before the riverside developement begins later this year. A SAD END TO A ONCE PROUD SHIP, Which was taken over by Numpties who thought that owning an old wooden boat was a piece of cake. Wooden boats have always been hard work and expensive to maintain, they were in the 50's when my Father and Uncle owned them and I am sure that present Owner's will confirm that it is still the case. |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 13 March 2008 at 10:51am
|
A point I missed Sea Cadets are Registered Charities as far as I am aware to gain funding for Youth (or in todays language Yoof) work, they were involved in the discussion and there was no mention of any seperate Charity owning the boat, they have all agreed to the way for forward as proposed or again in today's language are "on board" but unfortunatly not for long it would appear.
|
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 13 March 2008 at 6:02pm
|
tramontana, id be very interested in hearing where you sorce of information has come from regarding tha recent meetting about the kellington. ------------- |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 13 March 2008 at 6:29pm
|
Hi Northeastuser I am a little bit confused here, You say the K is owned by a charity on behalf of others, I think I know what you mean here but can you clarify it? The sea cadets are registered as a charity yes, And the K is owned by Stockton Sea Cadets. I am assuming you mean then that the ship is owned by the sea cadets association and is in a way lent to the Graham |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 13 March 2008 at 6:44pm
|
Hi Tramontana Interesting points my friend, May I ask what actual meeting you are sighting here, Or are we adding up the newspaper reports from recent months? I agree with you and the MOD that as far as they are concerned the K is indeed privately owned as in not a MOD ship anymore. Then again one could argue the point that the K as a ship belonging to the sea cadets is actually run by serving officers of the RN. As can be seen from the following: Eastern Area Area Officer Cdr Clive Smith RN Deputy area officer Cdr Stuart Watt RN Area Officer Cdr Paul Haines RN Northern area This is the area who covers the K Area Officer Cdr Colin Redstone OBE RN Deputy area officer Lt Cdr (SCC) Southern Area Area Officer Cdr Garry Bushell RN Deputy area officer Maj Andy Henderson RM Southwest Area Area Officer Cdr Neil Hinch RN Deputy area officer Cdr Jos Binns RN In fact all the way through the listings of high officers I have only come across one retired RN personnel that is Lt Cdr Rick Evens MBE RN Rtd who is the superintendent ( Sea Cadet Training Centre) SCTC HMS Raleigh The plan for the scrapping was reported in the Evening Gazette ( I think) and a few other local papers. In the way you transcribe here. Please note I am not seeking or desiring a argument am just curios as I am with Northeastuser’s post as to the reference or source. Graham |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 13 March 2008 at 6:47pm
|
Hi Again all I think I know the answer to this question already but does anyone have or know of any plans available for the K or her class? G |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 13 March 2008 at 8:19pm
|
That is the proposal as outlined at a meeting which recently took place and is not a compilation of newspaper reports, told to me by an "interested" party |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 1:15am
|
The meeting took place at the beginning of last week between several of the ‘interested’ parties.though one of those was asked directly if anymore meetings had been held and deniyed it. best way tramontana.just curious as to what side of the fence your firend is on!but not realy important. my comment re the ownerhip of the k was just an opinion that a charity is formed to serve its memebers and its asests belong to them not the charity. They are managed on teir behalf by the charity. Interesting sea cadet list. However none of the names or personnel there have any legal say in the kellington. Everyone seems to be missing the point that the Stockton sea cadets is a charity independent of the names on the above list. As Tremonton says the charity status may just be to enable funding. However the K belongs to that small charity run by 3 people. Not the regional cadets management. None of those are listed above. They are Mr M Brain Mister P Urwin Mr F Phillips And I sincerely hope the 3 listed above are aware of the legal implications of what they are about to allow to happen. And what they have allowed to happen in the past. Anyway this whole subject is far to depressing to continue to dwell over. ------------- |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 14 March 2008 at 9:32am
|
Hi Tramontana and Northeastuser. Firstly my humble apology for swiping the "hornets nest" so to speak. And thank you both for your comments, under the circumstanses it is apreciated. I have to agree with "T" "can no one use a username like fred :-)" That we all have our own source for material at times and unfortunatly due to reasons they prefere to keep there name out of it. This I respect and apreciate. Thanks N.E.U. for the information, most apreciated, as it is from T as well Graham |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 17 March 2008 at 3:25pm
|
The "hornets nest" is really caused by the confusion as to who actually owns the K, as far as I am aware there are no legal issues in regards to the ownership, that being Stockton Sea Cadets which has been confirmed by the M.O.D. defence equipment & support dept which confirms it was sold by Private Treaty on the 4th February 1999 to them and it is on that basis that the meetings have gone a head in regards to the method of it's disposal. I am sure if someone or a Group were to offer the Sea Cadets money for it I am sure they would snap their hands off, but the problem remains where is it going to go? it cannot remain where it is that is for sure as Stockton Council and British Waterways would be looking at the new Owner to provide them with proof of adequate Insurance Cover because of her present condition and how do you get her out of the water if she does suffer below waterline damage. As she is a former seagoing boat her anodes will have to be changed as it freshwater and non-tidal my "beef" and alway's has been about this boat is the way it was obtained, some people might consider it to be crafty but in my view it was downright underhanded if not dishonest and is not the way to teach Sea Cadets on how to get thing's in life. There is no doubt the Navy did want her back and maybe another preservation group could have had her before she was scrapped, who know's? The fault as I have said previously is the "numpties" who took her on without any funding in the "pot" to look after her properly |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 17 March 2008 at 5:49pm
|
Oh I completely agree with your second statement. Total stupidity not to plan ahead. I never said there was a problem with the ownership. My point was people are failing to take into consideration that the vessel is owned by a charity. The sea cadets have been asked about selling and the regional organisation have vetoed it. Regarding funds, did you know the Stockton sea cadets had over 40k in funds the year they left the K.
------------- |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 18 March 2008 at 4:18pm
|
Anodes on a minehunter? oh dear.she realy needs an expert to look after her. ------------- |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 19 March 2008 at 11:34am
| oh dear, you surely can't be the "expert" n.e.u. after the mess you made of the Irvine pinnace, a Minehunter is low magnetic signature not non magnetic signature even if hull is made of wood. |
Posted By: dgray
Date Posted: 19 March 2008 at 11:58am
|
As requested by Pioneer (or Pathfinder) before, can we keep the snide
comments to PM's so the rest of us don't have to read them. No offence intended but it gets rather tiresome.... ------------- Don Only a number, not even a name. How shall posterity hear of thy fame? |
Posted By: northeastuser
Date Posted: 19 March 2008 at 1:19pm
|
I was just implying that I had not thought of that.Then stated an expert needs to look after her. sorry if you thought i was having a go. Sorry you took it the wrong way. If you want to comment im open to private PM's ------------- |
Posted By: tramontana
Date Posted: 19 March 2008 at 1:22pm
|
I heartily agree dgray with you there. ------------- |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 12:32pm
|
Hi All
I just thought I would post a abridged version of our newsletter here for any interested party to read and maybe comment.
I have been busy so not posting all that much here, Plus for obvious reasons I thought it best to hang low but as things are still proceeding I thought I would try again here.
The following is as said a abridged version to the full copy.
Progress report
1. At the end of last month and the beginning of this month we approached 2 maritime agencies, The Historic vessels, and Sunderland Maritime Heritage, We felt they may be able to help with letters of support. The replies we obtained where very favorable. And these have been added to the support letters already obtained. 2. We also approached the Stockton Council water Authority regarding keeping the Kellington where she is and renovating her to a standard to use for training. They quickly blew this out of the water so our original plans to remove her are now the only option. 3. Two possible sites has now been found for the lifting out of the ship both of these sites fall within the Stockton area so all permissions will have to come from them. We hope to be in a position to apply for the permissions through the council by the end of this month. A draft planning permission is been wrote up by our solicitors as we speak. 4. The BBC made a report on a similar project although this was land based. They asked us to put our project foreword. We have not done so as yet but we do have a contact for this. We will also be preparing the news press release and awaiting the outcome of the meeting with the council before sending it to the press. 5. We have also been in touch with the MNTB (Maritime Nautical Training Board) regarding obtaining details certification we require. We have been granted the correct ones in readiness and courses have been prepared in readiness. 6. A dry dock near the Kellington’s position has been secured. 7. A meeting with the Wivanhoe’s museum has enabled us to work out tonnages for the lift. A lot more work needs to be done on this so if anyone can estimate the lightest we can get the ship down to it would be appreciated. 8. We now have a second offer for another long term Berth for the Kellington when work is complete. 9. We are also now in talks with a European Sea Cadets Society regarding sponsorship deals. Several companies have also shown a big interest in this form of backing. Our latest figure for financial backing now stands at £666,300.00 plus possible sponsorship on top of this. This figure has the possibility of been higher if we chose to operate as a charity. And not a non profit making organization as we are at the moment. 10. Full insurance cover has been arranged for the Kellington project. 11. Stockton Council informed us after we contacted them that 6 workers where aboard the Kellington removing litter. 12. as well as the Kellington Project, we have also started talks to obtain a second ship, This ship is a ex RN Survey vessel. An initial viewing was done last week where we also met up with, Don Smith of the Nottage society, Hans Ng of Brooks Bros and Bob Dean of the TCA. The purpose of this second ship is for two reasons, Firstly to show we are serious and not as been suggested just playing around. And secondly in order to have a ship working and starting the all important business base. 3. Where we are with the council 1. We have applied for the follow up meeting to take place in September with the aim of removing the Kellington by end of year. |
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 12:40pm
Hi NEU
Thats a interesting point, As for the amount, I assume you are adding the income and deducting the expenditure from the accounts available on the Charity Commissions web site as this is the only way I can get it to same amount as you.
The Charity commission was in contact with me regarding a few things and as seems rather prevalent in this topic the accounts for the Stockton sea cadets have gone astray.
But at this present time no one can purchase the ship nor apparently can anyone scrap it either. It is in a bit of a sticky situation but this can be worked round apparently.
We have as stated obtained insurance and all other documentation requested by the Council at previous meeting. We have a dry dock waiting and lifting Co standing by.
Graham
|
northeastuser wrote:Posted By: johnk
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 1:02pm
|
Hi all,
Re above, well, what can I say but wow! I have to say I was sceptical that anything could or would be done for her but...appreciate early days but you seem to be giving it a really good go! is there a web-site for the project? I am sure many would be interested to hear about her and even offer more support perhaps! hear the Bronnington has just about had it so keeping Kellington would be good. Proposing to lift her? that will be quite a site, can only wish you all the best, do please keep in touch when you can.
Johnk
|
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 1:16pm
Hi Johnk
Thanks for the interest, There is a small website which is in need for total revamp and update, It was set up in a hurry and I am working on a new one as and when I get time. It can be found at:
http://hms-kellington.webs.com/ - http://hms-kellington.webs.com/
Please excuse the adverts at moment I usually have them as a premium but we had a massive hack on the Society site and I dropped the lot for a spell until I decided where to take them.
As most people here know we have been working on this project now for some time. Unfortunately as is still the case within some circles we are not taken serious. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes sort of thing and many ideas and plans which are been researched within the market so to speak. But the main project is now well under way and all reports are complete.
As I say I will try to keep you updated and most of the time this will be when news comes in or we do th monthly newsletter (which is to be re-styled next month)
Hope to speak to you all soon and as said if anyone wants the newsletters in the future please contact me or if you have any questions let me know we always answer all mails. Our society address is. mailto:hemlingtonnhs@gmx.co.uk - hemlingtonnhs@gmx.co.uk or you can send the Kellington mail from the site or by personal mail from here.
Regards
Graham
|
Posted By: johnk
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 3:22pm
|
Hi Graham,
Many thanks for your last and most interesting. Have been onto the site and can see you really have quite something on your hands! but as mentioned, I think it would be a total waste of a great little ship and an assest to the area if he was just broken and disposed of, happens far to often with our marine heritage. Again wish you and your team all the best,
JohnK
|
Posted By: graham01
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 5:25pm
|
Hi Johnk
Yes unfortunately this is happening all too often now. We have most bases covered now and all we can do is hope at the end of the day. Unfortunately the council seem hell bent in scrapping but we will fight to the end. I do honestly think we stand a good chance.
|
Posted By: Keith J
Date Posted: 09 January 2009 at 5:51pm
|
Hello, My first post here. I wish you every luck with the Kellington project. I travelled from Shoreham to Guernsey and back, on her as a young sea cadet in the around 1980. We engaged in paired minesweeping with H.M.S Alfriston on the way to Guernsey. I had a thoroughly enjoyable time on board and recall that when the bow gun was fired to port or starboard, she would jump into a slight list from the recoil. It is saddening to see her in such a condition. I hope that something can be done. |