# Humber Tugs



## tony smith

Has anyone any information on the tug "Lady Joan" built by Cochrane @ Selby circa 87
Her sisters were:
Lady Theresa which is now the Fairplay X
Lady Sybil which is now the Fairplay XI
Lady Dulcie which is or was the Fulgor as photographed in Venice several years ago (picture available). 
Any updates please.
Tony


----------



## tanker

With pleasure Tony , now is the Italian CONERO,acquired in1992 by Co.Rim.a
Naples.


----------



## tony smith

Hi Tanker,
Thank you for your reply
The Lady Joan is now Conero? 
or
The Fulgor is now Conero?
Regards
Tony


----------



## tony smith

*Fulgor*

Ron,
I'm still getting used to the site,but i 'm nearly there.
My email is:[email protected]
The photo had suffered a bit from being in my draw at work.
Cheers
Tony


----------



## tanker

Yes LADY JOAN is now CONERO.
Gp


----------



## tony smith

Many thanks for your reply
Do you know if FULGOR is still working in Venice?
Cheers
Tony


----------



## sam2182sw

HI Saw the LADY JOAN LAST TO WEEK AGO I was on a cruise o THE LEGEND OF THE SEA and she stood by while we were docking i am form the river humber area and as soon as i saw here you could tell she was ex hull tug
saml


----------



## ruud

Ahoy,
Here the Conero, photo taken by P.Sinke,

sisterships: LADY JOAN, LADY DULCIE, LADY THERESA, LADY SYBIL)
Registered: IMO 8616257 (RI 72739) /(ITA)ON 1851
157 GRT, 47 NRT, L24,31m(22,08), B7,73m, D3,185m(3,81)
2 fpp, 2x diesel 4tew 6cyl Ruston type 6AP230M, 2050bhp-1416kW, sp 10,5kn, bp 30t
1988: Built by 'Cochrane & Sons Ltd' at Selby (YN 137) (keel laid 22/02/1987)
1988 -01/02: delivered to 'Humber Tugs Ltd' at Grimsby
(GBR flag)
1992: To "CO.RIM.A. - Societa Cooperativa Rimorchiatori Ancona arl" at Ancona, renamed CONERO
(ITA flag, regd Naples, ON 1851, c/s IQHC, 143 GRT, 37 NRT)
2005: still in service


----------



## FLYERS

Tony,

1988 LADY SYBIL, 1999 FAIRPLAY X

Registered: IMO 8616269 /(GBR)ON 712667
156 GRT, L24,31m(22,08), B7,73m, D3,185m(3,81)
2 scr, 2x diesel 4tew 6cyl Ruston type 6AP230M, 2050bhp, sp 10,5kn, bp 30t

1988: Built by "Cochrane Shipbuilders Ltd" at Goole (YN 138)
1988 -xx/01: delivered to "Humber Tugs Ltd" at Hull
(GBR flag, ON 712667, c/s MJLV)
1996: To "Howard Smith Ltd" at Hull
1999: To "Fairplay Schleppdampfschiffsreederei Richard Borchard" at Hamburg, for service at Rotterdam, renamed FAIRPLAY X
(ATG flag, c/s V2OQ)
2004: still in service

1988 LADY THELMA, 1988 LADY DULCIE, 1990 FULGOR, 1997 SAN GALLAN

(sisterships: LADY JOAN, LADY DULCIE, LADY THERESA, LADY SYBIL)
Registered: IMO 8616271 /(ITA)ON 768
157 GRT, 47 NRT, L24,34m(22,03), B7,73m, D3,187m(3,81)
2 scr, 2x diesel 4tew 6cyl Ruston type 6AP230M, sp 10,5kn

1988: Built by "Cochrane & Sons Ltd" at Selby (YN 139)
(laid down as LADY THELMA)
1988 -xx/08: delivered to "Humber Tugs Ltd" at Grimsby
(GBR flag)
1990: To "Tripnavi SpA" at Trieste (ITA), renamed FULGOR
(ITA flag, regd Trieste, ON 768, c/s IVGV)
1997: To "Petrolera Transoceanica SA" at San Isidro (PER), renamed SAN GALLAN
2004: still in service

1988 LADY THERESA, 1994 HILLSIDER, 2001 FAIRPLAY XI

(sisterships: LADY JOAN, LADY DULCIE, LADY THERESA, LADY SYBIL)
Registered: IMO 8616245 /(GBR)ON712666
156 GRT, L24,31m(22,08), B7,73m(7,31), D3,185m(3,81)
2 fpp +nozzle, 2x diesel 4tew 6cyl Ruston type 6AP230M, 2050bhp, sp 10,5kn, bp 30t

LADY THERESA
1987 -25/09: Launched by "Cochrane Shipbuilders Ltd" at Selby (YN 136) (keel laid 27/01/1987)
1988 -26/01: delivered to "Humber Tugs Ltd" at Hull
(GBR flag, regd Hull, ON712666)
1994: To "Clyde Shipping Co Ltd" at Glasgow, mng "Tyne & Wear Tugs Ltd" at Sunderland, rebuilt, renamed HILLSIDER
(GBR flag, regd Newcastle, ON712666)
1995 -xx/05: To "Cory Towage Ltd" at London
2001: To "Fairplay Schleppdampfschiffsreederei Richard Borchard" at Hamburg for service at Rotterdam, renamed FAIRPLAY XI
(NLD flag)
2004: still in service

Hope this info is of assistance.

Cheers,

George.


----------



## ruud

Ahoy,
Here seen as FAIRPLAY X and XI


----------



## EdScott

*[email protected]*



sam2182sw said:


> HI Saw the LADY JOAN LAST TO WEEK AGO I was on a cruise o THE LEGEND OF THE SEA and she stood by while we were docking i am form the river humber area and as soon as i saw here you could tell she was ex hull tug
> saml


Hi Sam. I joined the now defunct Humber Tugs Ltd in November 1977. And transferring over to the sth bank was one of the biggest mistakes I ever made. See attachment for more details. Regards, Ed.



EdScott said:


> Hi
> I was a trainee deckhand and joined Humber Tugs in Nov 1977 with Pete Nesvick. In May 1981 I transferred over to the southbank tugs which in the long run was one of the biggest mistakes I ever made!
> I don"t know what they"re like today but too many over at Immingham had the attitude that if the company employed you ---- they owned you.
> And Roy Sanderson, deck superintendant???, was more than willing to abuse a culture like that and did. Eventually, with a combination of 10th rate management and a spineless workforce, the company was ran into the ground. Sanderson replaced Pete Willingham around 1983. As far as I am aware he had no qualifications to justify a promotion like that and Willingham was a master mariner and a decent bloke.
> Sanderson on the other hand was a devious, deep, progress chaser who regarded lying and deceipt as being a legitimate part of management and if that didn"t work veiled threats were his plan b.
> But he was not working alone, as I stated above there were no shortage of suckholers and yes men who would cooperate with him.
> One such was a tug master, Peter Gel. This invertebrate eventually played a hand in getting me dismissed after I refused to go out to the Rough field, my argument being that it must be sea work, which was "voluntary"
> The company came up with the response that it was only sea work if the hirer agreed to a "daily" hire arrangement and this was "hourly"
> although they never showed me any evidence and I knew of no one else who had ever seen this.
> Almost certainly Sanderson was probably lying about this as was his speciality but proving it was easier to say then do. The ludicrous implication with this argument was any where on the planet was the port of Immingham. In other words there is no such thing as sea work.


I was dismissed on Thursday 14 of March 1985 with no written confirmation of this (they never liked putting anything in writing) then within a few weeks the TGWU branch filed an application with the local industrial tribunal for an unfair dismissal hearing against Humber Tugs.
They enlisted the help of Andrew Marvel Jackson a Hull based solicitor of whom I can find no reference on the internet --its as if the man never existed. From late March out to the following November the company came up with a littany of excuses as to why their witnesses could not attend, Sanderson was on holiday, then a few weeks went by and it was Gels turn to conveniantly be away, next was Jacksons turn not to be there and these delays were always announced after a new appearance date was offered by the courts service.
They were abusing the system but legally. I on the other hand was ready to go within a few weeks.
After they ran out of holidays we got an appearance in late November 85 and about 2 weeks before the union sent me a letter from Jackson offering £500 to drop the case, later increased to £750, which I refused. This was a "without prejudice" letter meaning I could not mention its existence in court. However I could have legally circulated it around the work force ---pity I did not think of this at the time! 


Howard[/QUOTE]
Good afternoon Howard, thank you for your time. I am aware of the solicitors and their practice but I can find no mention of Marvel Jackson himself. His legal background, university, nothing.
My representative at tribunal, John Ibbot, told me the company paid him as much as £1000 a day in court over the 2 days which does not surprise me when you consider what was at stake for the company.
Whats that in todays money? --£2000/£2500 per day!
The afore-mentioned Peter Gel admitted under oath that he was "up in arms" about not getting sea pay for a Rough field voyage that he was sent on only a few weeks after my dismissal because it was outside of the "box" ---the very reason why I lost my job!
But then went on to explain that after an "explanation" from the company "in all fairness it wasn"t sea work".
What Gel really meant was "in all fairness I don"t want to join Grimsbys ever lengthening dole queues" and was clearly scared.
The "explanation" was, in reality, a threat.
Its also worth mentioning that the location was about 30 miles NE of the bull light float so how many miles out to sea did you need to go before you were at sea --- fifty, a hundred, a thousand?
In the agreement between the company and our branch of the TGWU it stated "sea work is voluntary" yet no one apparently knew the specific definition of the term and therefore the declaration was legally worthless.
After the very brief protest from Gel--- Jackson visited the sth bank office and took a statement from him. He signed it and this then equalled an affidavit which could be used against him in court if he decided to stand up to them which, of course, he was never going to.
As I said earlier the absence of a company recognised geographical line at which port work ended and seawork started meant you could be a thousand miles nth of the Orkneys and still be in the port of Immingham therefore you had to go! I said this at the tribunal
Regards, Ed.


----------



## EdScott

*[email protected]*



tony smith said:


> Has anyone any information on the tug "Lady Joan" built by Cochrane @ Selby circa 87
> Her sisters were:
> Lady Theresa which is now the Fairplay X
> Lady Sybil which is now the Fairplay XI
> Lady Dulcie which is or was the Fulgor as photographed in Venice several years ago (picture available).
> Any updates please.
> Tony


Hello. I remember the preceding Lady Joan in Hull, formerly Tradesman.
It looked like the sister to Masterman but with a bigger engine.
I left the company in March 85 and I have included an attachment.
Regards, Ed.


EdScott said:


> Hi
> I was a trainee deckhand and joined Humber Tugs in Nov 1977 with Pete Nesvick. In May 1981 I transferred over to the southbank tugs which in the long run was one of the biggest mistakes I ever made!
> I don"t know what they"re like today but too many over at Immingham had the attitude that if the company employed you ---- they owned you.
> And Roy Sanderson, deck superintendant???, was more than willing to abuse a culture like that and did. Eventually, with a combination of 10th rate management and a spineless workforce, the company was ran into the ground. Sanderson replaced Pete Willingham around 1983. As far as I am aware he had no qualifications to justify a promotion like that and Willingham was a master mariner and a decent bloke.
> Sanderson on the other hand was a devious, deep, progress chaser who regarded lying and deceipt as being a legitimate part of management and if that didn"t work veiled threats were his plan b.
> But he was not working alone, as I stated above there were no shortage of suckholers and yes men who would cooperate with him.
> One such was a tug master, Peter Gel. This invertebrate eventually played a hand in getting me dismissed after I refused to go out to the Rough field, my argument being that it must be sea work, which was "voluntary"
> The company came up with the response that it was only sea work if the hirer agreed to a "daily" hire arrangement and this was "hourly"
> although they never showed me any evidence and I knew of no one else who had ever seen this.
> Almost certainly Sanderson was probably lying about this as was his speciality but proving it was easier to say then do. The ludicrous implication with this argument was any where on the planet was the port of Immingham. In other words there is no such thing as sea work.


I was dismissed on Thursday 14 of March 1985 with no written confirmation of this (they never liked putting anything in writing) then within a few weeks the TGWU branch filed an application with the local industrial tribunal for an unfair dismissal hearing against Humber Tugs.
They enlisted the help of Andrew Marvel Jackson a Hull based solicitor of whom I can find no reference on the internet --its as if the man never existed. From late March out to the following November the company came up with a littany of excuses as to why their witnesses could not attend, Sanderson was on holiday, then a few weeks went by and it was Gels turn to conveniantly be away, next was Jacksons turn not to be there and these delays were always announced after a new appearance date was offered by the courts service.
They were abusing the system but legally. I on the other hand was ready to go within a few weeks.
After they ran out of holidays we got an appearance in late November 85 and about 2 weeks before the union sent me a letter from Jackson offering £500 to drop the case, later increased to £750, which I refused. This was a "without prejudice" letter meaning I could not mention its existence in court. However I could have legally circulated it around the work force ---pity I did not think of this at the time! 


Howard[/QUOTE]
Good afternoon Howard, thank you for your time. I am aware of the solicitors and their practice but I can find no mention of Marvel Jackson himself. His legal background, university, nothing.
My representative at tribunal, John Ibbot, told me the company paid him as much as £1000 a day in court over the 2 days which does not surprise me when you consider what was at stake for the company.
Whats that in todays money? --£2000/£2500 per day!
The afore-mentioned Peter Gel admitted under oath that he was "up in arms" about not getting sea pay for a Rough field voyage that he was sent on only a few weeks after my dismissal because it was outside of the "box" ---the very reason why I lost my job!
But then went on to explain that after an "explanation" from the company "in all fairness it wasn"t sea work".
What Gel really meant was "in all fairness I don"t want to join Grimsbys ever lengthening dole queues" and was clearly scared.
The "explanation" was, in reality, a threat.
Its also worth mentioning that the location was about 30 miles NE of the bull light float so how many miles out to sea did you need to go before you were at sea --- fifty, a hundred, a thousand?
In the agreement between the company and our branch of the TGWU it stated "sea work is voluntary" yet no one apparently knew the specific definition of the term and therefore the declaration was legally worthless.
After the very brief protest from Gel--- Jackson visited the sth bank office and took a statement from him. He signed it and this then equalled an affidavit which could be used against him in court if he decided to stand up to them which, of course, he was never going to.
As I said earlier the absence of a company recognised geographical line at which port work ended and seawork started meant you could be a thousand miles nth of the Orkneys and still be in the port of Immingham therefore you had to go! I said this at the tribunal
Regards, Ed. [email protected]


----------

