Author Topic: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard  (Read 431 times)

Offline shoot999

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2021, 02:55:25 PM »
Shoot999 The info came from a 93 page Document on the webb with no one to credit too or copyrite detail.


Not sure its the same but I got hold of a list through the job and its on here as Chatham Dockyard  Dockings 1951-1983 if anyone is interested. Quite a nice memory jogger  of when I was on various vessels during the 60s and 70s.

Offline castle261

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Life is for living - Love is for giving.
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2021, 06:06:59 PM »
I was a dockyard crane driver / stoker too.  I recall - no navy personal - that I remember +
I would have noticed - if the Tug had different colours - from all the other tugs - Good topic thou !
shoot999

Offline grandarog

  • Mr
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
  • Man of Kent .Born and Bred.
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2021, 04:09:25 PM »
Shoot999 The info came from a 93 page Document on the webb with no one to credit too or copyrite detail.

Offline shoot999

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2021, 01:06:42 PM »
shoot999 - Look at the grandarog log - Emulous in No 4 dock at Chatham in 1954 /1955.


I did. Which confirms it was not HMS Emulous as that vessel had departed Chatham by that time, but Emulous (ex Empire Spruce) which was serving at Chatham during that period as a civilian manned harbour tug.


And unless I'm mistaken the grandarog info is from the doc I supplied that covered refits and dockings at Chatham.


And just to confirm, when you went to relieve the man in question you were a civilian?

Offline castle261

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Life is for living - Love is for giving.
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2021, 11:40:45 AM »
 shoot999 - Look at the grandarog log - Emulous in No 4 dock at Chatham in 1954 /1955.

Offline shoot999

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2021, 10:43:08 AM »
The bad news is that it looks like HMS Emulous is not the tug castle261 was on.


The good news is all the 'Empire' tugs in the fleet were renamed late 40s/early 50s. For example the tug I was on 'Resolve' was originally 'Empire Zona'.


Empire Spruce was renamed Emulous and served at Chatham from Nov 47 to May 58, which fits into castle261 timeline. It would have been civilian manned.


Eventful life. Almost cut in two and sank with the loss of four lives Gareloch 43. Salved and repaired only to get stranded off Dover in 58 and finally scuttled off Newfoundland.


Unfortunately I am unable to find a pic, but will keep searching

Offline grandarog

  • Mr
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
  • Man of Kent .Born and Bred.
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2021, 09:55:09 AM »
Bit more about Emulous..Looks like was bought by Admiralty from US Navy in 1948
EMULOUS W138
 US Navy tug made available under Lend/lease operating under White Ensign. Allocated to SNO Selsey to tow Phoenix and Whale units.
Built 1943 by Camden Shipbuilding Co., Camden, New Jersey USA. Wooden hulled tug.  L165'. B33'4". D15'6". 1360disp. 1875ihp 3cylTE oil fired steam engine. 2x watertube boilers. Bunkers 220 tons. Single screw. Armament 1x 3". 2x 20mm AA. Complement 32.
 1943 Delivered to US Navy, named BATR18. 2-2-1944 Transferred to UK Admiralty under lend/lease act. 2-2-1944 Commissioned as HMS Emulous at Boston, Mass. 7-6-1944 Departed Thames following refit. 6-12-1944 Allocated as rescue tug, N
ore command. 23-4-1946
Returned to US Navy, renamed BATR18. 1948 Sold for commercial
service.

Offline castle261

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Life is for living - Love is for giving.
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2021, 09:40:35 AM »
Re - shoot999 - the Master did not wear Dockyard overalls & I dont think the crew did either.
The Master wore just a shirt & trousers. If memory serves me right - the Tug did not look any
different from the other E type Tugs - The timing was right about some 4 dock work - I entered
the dockyard in February 1953 - from  the Aylesford Paper Mill site  `Brookgate Industries`.

P.S. -  Not a paddle tug - a propeller seems more appropriate.

Offline castle261

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Life is for living - Love is for giving.
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2021, 07:20:27 PM »
Thank you granarog - After making inquiries years later -
I was told by some dockyard people ` there is no such Tug with the name of ` Emulous `.

I did not think it was BIG enough for a Ocean going Tug - after Crane work on ` Reward & Typhoon `.
I did a drawing of  the `Tug Reward`in a spare moment of work --  8)
A sister tug to `Reward` is in a film called `The Key `- has been on Sky channel 328 - lately.

Offline grandarog

  • Mr
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
  • Man of Kent .Born and Bred.
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2021, 12:49:02 PM »
RN SHIPS AND OTHER VESSELS IN DRY DOCK / SLIPS HM DOCKYARD, CHATHAM.


 Dock no 4. TUG Emulous 22.01.51 to 25.01.51 Removal of Propeller.
 Dock no 3 TUG Emulous 23.02.51 27.02.51 Replacing Propeller
 Dock no 4 TUG Emulous 18.09.51 08.10.51 Refit Docking
 Dock no 3 TUG Emulous 03.09.52 19.09.52 Repairs to Outer Bottom
 Dock no 4 TUG Emulous 01.10.54 11.10.54 Refit Docking
 Dock no 4 TUG Emulous 12.05.55 05.07.55 Survey & Repairs to Outboard Plating

Offline shoot999

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2021, 11:04:42 AM »
Pretty sure there were no Admiralty tugs with your suggested names. The tugs with a similar name that operated at Chatham at that time would have been Energetic, Egerton and Emphatic. If I get any more information I'll update.


With further research (helped by grandarog post) it was not an Admiralty tug, but a Royal Navy rescue tug of the Director class. HMS Emulous W138. Launched 1943. Armed with 3" AA gun and two 20mm AA.


To confuse the issue the Admiralty  Director Class (as opposed to RN) were paddle tugs.


I wonder if you can remember whether it was still manned by Navy, or civilian where it would have been painted buff and black?


The pic is of the Director

Offline castle261

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Life is for living - Love is for giving.
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2021, 04:28:47 PM »
Regardng the loss of the tug TID 97 - I was working that day by No 2 Basin - my memory of it now,
it was snowing heavy, we were at the main gate clocking off at 4pm - BEFORE hearing of the incident.
because you could not see into No 3 Basin, for snow flurries.
Perhaps shoot999 could help me on another matter, but it was in the 1950s. I was ordered to a
Tug Emulous, (Emmulous) to take over from a men who had an injury to his hand. It took me all the morning to get on board, because as soon as the Tug came along side a ship, I asked the Captain   ` ` permission come aboard `. He refused ` try later, so I followed the Tug,all over the Basin, finally
allowed on board, by climbing down a very long ladder, the tug carried. Finally the man was take to
the Surgery - He was a greaser & oil does not mix very well - with blood.-- Emmulous or Emulous
was a big Tug.

Offline shoot999

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
Re: TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2021, 02:33:27 PM »
I served on most tugs at Chatham including both remaining TIDs. Awful tugs. Flat bottomed so they flopped from side to side and had very little power to get themselves out of trouble.
Pic taken in the 60s of both TIDs  alongside the Expeller  where I also served some time as a cabin boy.


Out of the two survivors only Harry Shrimplin (Shrimpo) remained in the job and became a close friend (as most of us were in this close knit community). We lost touch when I transferred to the Plymouth tugs, and Harry went to Portland
Pic of Harry on the  Chatham tugs.

Offline stuartwaters

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
TID 97 and her loss in Chatham Dockyard
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2021, 12:58:09 PM »

Recovered from the old Forum using the Wayback Machine
TID-97 was one of over 180 small tugs built towards the end of the Second World War. The TID (Tug, Inshore and Dock) was designed to be built rapidly, using a large amount of pre-fabrication. Powered by a 2 cylinder compound steam engine with a coal-fired boiler they were designed to be simple and cheap to run. The TIDs were 65ft long, 17ft wide across the beam and displaced 124 tons. Each hull only took a week to build.


TID 164 at Chatham Historic Dockyard. TID 97 was identical:





TID-97 was built at the yard of C D Holmes in Hull and was launched on 22nd June 1944. She was completed on 12th September that year and was taken into the Admiralty Yard Craft Service. After service in Rouen, Ostende and Dover, she was transferred to Sheerness on 16th March 1945 and again to Chatham in November, where she remained for the rest of her service career.


On 29th December 1962, TID-97 was on duty in No 3 basin at Chatham, assisting in the berthing of RFA Hebe, an 8,000 ton Stores Transport ship of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The Hebe had entered the Dockyard in a strong and blustery NE wind and TID-97 with a couple of other tugs were struggling to manoeuvre the ship into her berth. In an effort to assist the tugs, Hebe's Master ordered her engines to go slightly ahead. The sudden pull of the ship together with the wash from the propellers caused TID-97 to capsize. The tug's 2 deck-hands jumped for their lives and managed to swim to safety. Tragically, her master Leslie Savage, Mechanic George Osbourne and Stoker William Gell were trapped inside and drowned. The tug's two deck-hands, Shrimplin and Woollard together with sailors from the destroyer HMS Diamond and the frigate HMS Chichester made heroic attempts to rescue the rest of the crew, but to no avail.


At about 5pm that day, Admiralty Police officers called at the home of diver Mr R Willing and asked him to attend a sinking tug in No3 basin and on arrival at the scene, Willing found the tug to have been secured underwater to dock-side capstans, suspended on wire hawsers. They were stuck and could neither lift nor lower the vessel. Willing was asked to swim under the tug and assess the situation. Willing considered that the hawsers were about to break and refused to go under the tug, but instead entered the water and searched around the upper parts. On surfacing, he asked that the wires be cut to allow the vessel to settle to the bottom of the basin. No further action was taken at the time, but during the night, the cables broke and the tug sank to the bottom of the basin anyway.


The following day, Willing dived on the tug again. He entered the vessel by breaking one of the wheelhouse windows and found the body of TID-97's master there. The body was recovered to a waiting ambulance. A week later, the coastal salvage ship RFA Swin arrived from Dover and TID-97 was lifted from the bottom of No 3 basin on 4th January 1963. The wreck was then searched and the bodies of the other two crew-men were recovered, one from the engine room and the other from the crew's mess.


TID-97 being lifted by RFA Swin





RFA Hebe





TID-97 was sold to R.F. Horlock of Mistley in Essex and was broken up. A sister-tug, TID-164 is still in existence and is currently at Anchor Wharf, in Chatham Historic Dockyard.
"I did not say the French would not come, I said they will not come by sea" - Admiral Sir John Jervis, 1st Earl St Vincent.