bkempins Posted October 22, 2013 Author Share Posted October 22, 2013 I ordered a Hornby and a Branchline Macaw Bolster Bogie Wagons. I was surprised to see that the two cars are very different in size. The Bachmann car is much longer. Can anyone advise me on which of these cars is the correct model to make a WWI era tank carrying flat car? Here is a shot showing the two wagons as a work in progress on my layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Loving this. Will keep an eye out for your book. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 The longer BB is post-WW1, I believe. I'm not even sure it's Great Western (and therefore shouldn't have been called a 'Macaw'). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted October 22, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 22, 2013 I'd agree the shorter one is typical of all the photos I've seen. Bovington is quite local and I did a bit or research as I used to work the Signalbox at Wool where the branch to Bovington used to start. The photos I've seen in books and up at the Tank Museum all show wagons like the one with the tank on in your photo, lengthwise anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 22, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 22, 2013 I ordered a Hornby and a Branchline Macaw Bolster Bogie Wagons. I was surprised to see that the two cars are very different in size. The Bachmann car is much longer. Can anyone advise me on which of these cars is the correct model to make a WWI era tank carrying flat car? Here is a shot showing the two wagons as a work in progress on my layout. The Hornby one is the ex Airfix BBA (BR code) and is basically a GWR Macaw although I'm not sure about the detail authenticity, the Bachmann model is a BBC (BR code) and is longer than a BBA. GWR Macaw wagons came in a variety of lengths with varying suffix letters to identify the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris hndrsn Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 I thought this excerpt from the Railway Correspondence and Travel Society website on WW1 railway wagons used for tank transport may interest you: The second part of Mike's talk dealt with the movement of tanks, by rail. He showed us slides of a variety of specialised wagons, including Rectanks and Warflats. Britain is one of the few countries to transport tanks by rail. Owing to the limited loading gauge it has been necessary to adopt a number of special techniques to ensure that no damage is done to vehicles or structures. During WWI, for example, MkIV tanks were arranged with gun sponsons that could be "wound-in" to fit the loading-gauge. Later, the railway vehicles were painted with a central white line along which the vehicles had to be aligned when loading. Not that tanks were only moved on special WD wagons. We saw pictures of tanks on ex-LSWR machinery wagons, Low-Macs, GWR "Macaw B"s and the same railway's well-wagons. Also illustrated was a most unusual tank-loading vehicle. This was, what appeared to be, a conventional four-wheeled flat truck, but with one pair of wheels, with axle, which could be removed. Lowering the unsupported end to the ground created a ramp up which tanks could be loaded onto their special train. Cheers, Hendo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris hndrsn Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 You should also have a look at this article http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?38180-David-Fletcher-Tanks-and-Trains&s=15c67edc8d6239636340ff7787018bdd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris hndrsn Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Bernard, There are some good images of the Macaw B as modified for tank traffic here http://www.railalbum.co.uk/railway-wagons/military/ww1-gwr-macaw.htm Cheers, Hendo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkempins Posted October 22, 2013 Author Share Posted October 22, 2013 Thanks for the info. That did clear things up. I will use the bogies from the Bachmann car on a scratchbuilt chassis based on the shorter Hornby wagon. I would prefer to just buy another Hornby or two, but they seem to be quite hard to get. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
velotrain Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 I wasn't allowed to copy and paste from Word (or even plain text), so am sending this as an attachment. If you'll allow a constructive comment on the townscape, I'm modify the broken edges of the structures so they don't look so much like intentionally "ruined" cast resin. Charles Cambrai for RMweb text.txt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mike Bellamy Posted December 8, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 8, 2013 Charles Hope this helps When I looked at the lead photo of this thread, I knew I had seen others of the same scene. Although these tanks are indeed headed for Cambrai, they have just been loaded at what was known as Plateau Station. "The Plateau railhead was positioned close to both Central Workshops"from: http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109712 Here is a close-up shot of the first Warflat wagon, with a steam engine coupled to it:http://www.pinterest.com/pin/300826450080297153/ Loading the train with a cribwork ramp:http://www.pinterest.com/pin/300826450080297159/ Some of the wagons (I presume the rear row) are clearly of a truss-rod type, and they would buckle under the weight of the tanks - especially where the leading edge of the tracks also carried all the weight of the projecting rhomboid nose. Two tracks of Mk IV tanks at Plateau Station:http://media.tipsimages.it/MediaNews/Logo/MRE00132656.jpg The originals of (most of) these images are in the Imperial War Museum collection, but you must register before you can view them there; link on the pinterest screens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris hndrsn Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 These two images from the Australian War memorial site will be of interest. They show tanks loaded on 40 ton War Department Parrot wagons in France. I also read earlier in the thread someone writing that the RECTank wagons were kept in the UK, that is not true as once the cross channel ro-ro ferry service began in February 1918 tanks were not cross loaded to ship. Second as the French could not supply sufficient wagons many wagons of all types were made, or borrowed, and shipped to France. The pics https://www.awm.gov.au/view/collection/item/P10221.014/?person_id= https://www.awm.gov.au/view/collection/item/P10221.013/?person_id= Cheers, Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris hndrsn Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 With regards to "Plateau" station/yard it was on the high ground East of Albert, this thread on the Great War Forum will add much detail for anyone interested in how they got the tanks forward for the Battle of Cambrai. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris hndrsn Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Bernard, Being a bit of a pedant on this, when you publish your book please don't make the mistake many have been doing for 40 years in referring to the Light Railway system as the "War Department Light Railways". The light railways were originally operated by the Railway Operating Division of the Royal Engineers, but once it started expanding it was moved under control of GHQ BEF answering to the newly created Director of Light Railways at General Headquarters British Expeditionary Forces, France. The WD seems to be a mistake by Davies in his 1960's book, about page 50 from memory, where he is referring to the light railways and then slips into the abbreviation WDLR. The WD simply signifies that the item was made for the British War Department and the W /|\ D symbol adorned everything from clothing to rifles, trucks and railway carriages, as you can see from my post on the Parrot wagons. Each of the nations in the British Empire had there own version of the /|\ symbol, Australia's being D/|\D, I imagine Canada's was C/|\D and until the symbol was officially struck out, it was a good way of preventing theft. Cheers, Chris Australia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris hndrsn Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Bernard, You may also be interested in some detailed images of preserved Hunslet 4-6-0T #306 at the Australian War Memorial http://www.awm.gov.au/view/collection/item/REL29508/ Cheers, Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkempins Posted December 24, 2013 Author Share Posted December 24, 2013 Thanks for the replies. It has been helpful. If you are interested, the US 11th Engineers Unit History has a detailed account of the movement of tanks from Plateau to the Cambrai tank ramps.It includes a copy of the formerly secret operations order for the mission. I was able to borrow a copy from the US Library of Congress. I will include some of that information in my book. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
velotrain Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 Chris - what would go a long way toward helping bring WDLR into reduced usage, is suggesting something else for folks to reference these railways by. You provide the organizational history, but no alternate name; "Light Railway system" doesn't necessarily indicate the era and country being referenced. It doesn't need to be snappy, but short and/or relatively easy to say will help encourage adaptation. One benefit of WDLR is that (perhaps due to the past 40 years of usage) it immediately signifies to all, "British and Commonwealth Light Railway in WW1". I suspect that not using that name/acronym in one U.S.-published "book" will have very little impact, so if you're truly serious about making a change you might come up with an alternate - and then argue your case with the folks at www.wdlr.org.uk I mean no offense to Bernard by the quotes, but my experience of Kalmbach "books" is that they're magazine format, but somewhat thicker and use a stiffer cover-stock. Also, some 10 days ago I had noted the discussion of the Macaw wagons and started a thread called GWR Macaw bogie bolster wagons. I mentioned there were suggestions on this thread that the Hornby was the better starting point to model these, but several guys concurred that the Bachmann model is far closer physically - even if B-mann presents it as a much later wagon. After looking at a lot of images and other material, I had to agree. Here are a couple of references that helped to sway me: Wikipedia: " The J-series was for bolster wagons . . . For example, 45 feet (14 m), 30 ton bogie vehicles were coded 'Macaw B" Connoisseur Models: " Macaw H Bogie Bolster - These light 20 ton 35 foot bogie bolster vehicles were built by the GWR from 1927 onwards" The B and the D appear quite similar, with the exception of the latter using additional angle iron. I can't decide if the truss pieces they replaced were bar stock, or some sort of box structure. Happy Holidays to all - Charles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkempins Posted December 26, 2013 Author Share Posted December 26, 2013 Here is a shot from the IWM showing tanks being withdrawn from Fins after the battle of Cambrai. There are several others showing different views of this scene. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
velotrain Posted December 26, 2013 Share Posted December 26, 2013 Bernard - nice work on the fascine and the unditching rail - the tank looks quite convincing. Thanks for the Fins photo - I hadn't seen any post-battle images before. Were the ramps at Plateau and Fins basically identical - as you've modeled it? Here's a shot of a flat car deck sagging quite a bit during loading, with one of the officers seeming concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkempins Posted December 27, 2013 Author Share Posted December 27, 2013 Yes, it appears that the ramps at Plateau and at the unloading points were the same. The unit history of the 11th Engineers has a lot of detail on these. The following is an OCRed text extract from the 11th Unit History. About the middle of October orders were received fromMajor Hickes, the A. R.C.E. at Peronne to put six stub endt racks in Plateau yard in first class condition and to see t hatall switches in the yard were in good working order. Thisorder was followed on October 27 by the plans and detailedinstructions for t he construction of ramps at the end of eachof t he six tracks. These ramps were to beused in unloading and later in reloading the tanks to be concentratedat Plateau. They were to be 18 ft. wide and 8o ft.long, of which forty to fifty feet were to be inclined, and ofsufficient height to bring the top of the ramp level with acar floor. They were to be of cribwork to be built of t heordinary 5 in. x 10 in. x 9 ft. ties, 547 ties to each ramp.The bottom courses were toe-nailed together with spikesand the three top courses were bolted together with 7/8 in.drift-bolts. The instructions called for a detail of 12 carpenters and 6olaborers for each ramp. These men were supposed to completeone ramp in a day. As the ties used were nine feet longthe simplest way to construct a ramp seemed to be to makeit in two sections nine feet wide. This was the method outlinedin the plan but after the first ramp had been built itwas decided to cut some of the cross ties and interlace thewhole mass together. This change did not delay the workbut did increase materially the strength of t he ramps. Thefirst ramp was started on October 28 and one was built oneach succeeding day until the whole six were completed. (these were built by D Company 11th Engineers) Further in the document it says: 1. All material for ramps will be distributed at stationson Monday, 12th November. Special sleepers andsmall parts will be left on trucks near site. Tools andarticles likely to be stolen will be handed over to R.O.D.or R.T.C. for safe custody. This work will be arrangedby Captain Lobban R.E.2· Material for Bertincourt and New Heudicourtwill be run out on Tuesday, I3th instant. The formerduring the day, the latter after dark. C.O. 11 th EngineersU.S.A. will detail officers and men to carry out thiswork. This material will be stored at Ytres and Sorelrespectively until required.3· The foundations for Bertincourt and New Heudicourtwill be prepared on Tuesday, 13th instant. TheC.O. 11th Engineers U.S.A. will detail officers and men tocarry out this work.The building of the ramps will commence firstthing on Wednesday morning, 14th instant, and must becompleted entirely during the day.C.O. 11th Engineers U.S.A., will detail officers andmen to build ramps at the following sites: -Bertincourt 1 singleRuyaulcourt 1 doubleSorel 2 singleHeudicourt 1 singleNew Heudicourt 1 single O.C. 3rd R.M.R.E. will detail officers and men to buildthe ramps at:-Ytres 2 single 5· After the ramps at Bertincourt and New Heudicourtare finished they will be camouflaged and keptcovered except during use until dismantled. At these two ramps warning posts will be erected at400 ft. and 750 ft. from the face of ramp. On theseposts lamps wlll be placed by R.O.D. as warning driversof distance of ramp. On the train being placed in position at ramp, theofficer and men detailed for the duty by Major H ICKESwill fix the "T" piece supports. When this operation iscompleted report will be made to the R.T.O. in chargeof entrainment point who will inform Tanks Officer.The Tanks Officer will then take entire charge and entrain his Tanks, reporting completion of entrainment toR.T.O. The R.T.O. will then arrange for the removal of "T" -piece supports and see that all are loaded on trainwith necessary wedges for use at entrainment points.The R.T.O. will inform O.C., R.O.D. when thetrain is ready to move and O.C.,R.O.D. will then takeover and control all movements to detraining point.This procedure will be repeated during detrainment andback to PLATEAU.[The abbreviations R.T.O. and O.C.,R.O.D. mean therailway transport officer and the officer commanding, RailwayOperating Division. The word "truck" as used here andin the following secret order refers to the railway cars.Historian.] (Company B and F did that work.) If you want to learn more about the tank unloading at Cambrai, I recommend you get a copy of the 11th Engineers Unit History. Like all good engineers, the US engineer units in WWI left very detailed unit histories. I have read the histories of several RR units namely the 11th, 12th, 16th, 21st , and a few non-RR units (20th - forestry, 26th and 27th-Construction ) histories. Most are available for free from the internet archive (except the 11th's. That I borrowed from the US Library of Congress). Many infantry and artillery regiments wrote unit histories too. I guess it helps answer the, "What did you do in the war, Daddy?" question. In any case, the RR unit histories are good sources of what the military RRs were doing during the war. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
velotrain Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Does anyone know just what the "T" piece supports were? Being designated as riding with the tanks/train after loading, suggests that they were required for unloading, but not available with the pre-constructed ramps at the "detrainment" points.. Also - I'm curious about the decking on the Macaw cars as shown in the shot at Fins. There are also closer views of this at the site with the Macaw tank carrying wagon photos. Some 20 transverse strips, perhaps 2" x 4" - although I can't be certain of the material, support a steel plate (~1/2" thick) that is a bit (~4-6" ?) wider than the wagon's original decking. The primary reason was likely to provide a little "wiggle room" for steering the tank, but this would also protect the original wood deck, and perhaps help distribute the tank's weight over a wider area. Does anyone have specific info on these, particularly the material of the cross-strips? Wood seems likely, but I wonder if it might have been a hardwood? The third photo from the bottom on the Rail Album site has good details, and indicates that there was a smaller piece of steel - perhaps welded to the wagon - used to position and secure the cross-strips. The steel plates were apparently notched at the ends - for some unknown reason. I don't think any of the available photos provide an angle to see if there was any fastening done through the steel plates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkempins Posted December 28, 2013 Author Share Posted December 28, 2013 Does anyone know just what the "T" piece supports were? Being designated as riding with the tanks/train after loading, suggests that they were required for unloading, but not available with the pre-constructed ramps at the "detrainment" points.. Also - I'm curious about the decking on the Macaw cars as shown in the shot at Fins. There are also closer views of this at the site with the Macaw tank carrying wagon photos. Some 20 transverse strips, perhaps 2" x 4" - although I can't be certain of the material, support a steel plate (~1/2" thick) that is a bit (~4-6" ?) wider than the wagon's original decking. The primary reason was likely to provide a little "wiggle room" for steering the tank, but this would also protect the original wood deck, and perhaps help distribute the tank's weight over a wider area. Does anyone have specific info on these, particularly the material of the cross-strips? Wood seems likely, but I wonder if it might have been a hardwood? The third photo from the bottom on the Rail Album site has good details, and indicates that there was a smaller piece of steel - perhaps welded to the wagon - used to position and secure the cross-strips. The steel plates were apparently notched at the ends - for some unknown reason. I don't think any of the available photos provide an angle to see if there was any fastening done through the steel plates. I think the "T" are temporary jacks or braces used under the car ends. The decking arrangement has me stumped too. Best bet may be to model the side view that we can see and leave the top plain. But I can't believe the top deck was metal. A latter Army manual expressly prohibits metal on metal contact when loading vehicles. For example bull dozers can not be loaded on steel deck cars. Trying to load metal tracked vehicles on a metal deck would be very difficult. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
velotrain Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Unfortunately, none of the available photos of the loading at Plateau show what might be the "T" piece. They are clearly using maybe three 4x4 beams as "anti-sway" bracing on each side. I just noticed the forms loaded at the ends of the tanks in the photo at the below link, and these are likely the referenced "T" pieces. I suspect these were used until they later realized that the screw-jacks against the rails were the best solution. Given the thinness, I can't believe that the added decking is anything other than steel. Is this manual you mention perhaps written post-war? This decking is quite consistent on all the cars shown at http://www.railalbum.co.uk/railway-wagons/military/ww1-gwr-macaw.htm However, the one labeled "GWR Macaw D number 84401 with reinforced trusses undergoing a load test at Swindon Works", has continuous cross-boards above the bogies. I don't understand this, as it obviously won't create any less weight on them, and would only serve to spread the load more evenly across the original decking - the spacing on the final design only confirms that this denser spacing provided no benefit. Do you know the purpose of the staggered wider boards (ties?) on the loading ramp? It looks like you included these, but I can't be certain based on your photo. I know you provided the official specs, but the ramps at Plateau seem to have deviant flat sections. Were there any plans/drawings? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium TheQ Posted December 30, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 30, 2013 The longways boards ae probably here to stop the tracks chewing the tops off of the buffers, if you look at the photos the longways plank Macaw has round buffers level with the deck, the photo below it has oval buffers below the deck level, the photo above also appears to have buffers below deck level. The Q Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
velotrain Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Right, and/or breaking them - but I don't know why you thought that is what I was commenting on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.