Landships II

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

Tanks by Rail

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

This is the diagram of the WW2 50 ton car which is only 8'6" wide so obviously track width is going to be an issue for anything too much wider. That 8'6" does match with the image in post 1 though.

According to railalbum uk this 50 tonner is a development of the 45 tonner.

Edit: Ignore the second half of Q2 -- seems railalbum uk has answered by question that the WW1 railcars were just strengethen versions of existing flat beds

-- Edited by vollketten on Wednesday 16th of December 2015 05:40:32 PM

-- Edited by vollketten on Wednesday 16th of December 2015 05:47:36 PM

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

The tanks weren't quite battle ready. Males needed the 6pdr guns removed in order for the sponsons to be retracted and female guns were removed for the sponson halves to be swung inwards. I suspect it was probably more to do with space required on the rail cars. If you fully removed the sponsons you then need to transpirt them and that would require more rail cars. Just a thought.

thorst · Colonel

The width of the Mark IV hull without sponsons, tracks, exteriour rivets, iron profiles and the caps for the drive axes was 8'. For the with with all these things (the complete hull in working condition without the sponsons) my research suggests a width of below 8.9', so it is well inside the gauges given in the drawings you posted.

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

There must have been some chatter or documentation, referencing etc. relating to tank movements over narrow sections of track or restrictions etc. Some kind of annotatted regional or national map showing maybe wider tunnels etc.
I really wish I knew more about trains.

CharlieC · Legend

The railway lines in Southern England had been built by separate companies - the loading gauges were different for different lines.

The initial routing of the tanks to Southhampton was due to loading gauge issues and handling equipment considerations (the tanks

were unloaded from the wagons). I've seen a pretty comprehensive discussion about this on the Web but my memory just won't produce

a likely location.

Regards,

Charlie

(edit) Wasn't quite what I wanted but the Hathi trust has Henniker's 1937 book "Transportation on the Western Front" on line - the chapter on rail

transport of tanks starts at p.305. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b633844;view=1up;seq=373.

-- Edited by CharlieC on Thursday 17th of December 2015 11:56:12 PM

-- Edited by CharlieC on Friday 18th of December 2015 12:16:33 AM

Gwyn Evans · Legend

I may have the Tankette article you want, but in any case I know Paul Gandy.

Gwyn

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

I'll PM you thanks Gwyn.

I thought it would have been easier than it was to find a railmap of southern England with annotations for width and height restrictions than it apparently is.

Lothianman · Colonel

It wasn't just a matter of width - height, and the width at different heights, were also issues. Remember that rhomboid tanks are rectangular in cross-section (with sponsons removed or in), so simply putting on wide tracks could have been an issue because it increased the width at the worst point. Curves could also be an issue because railway locomotives and wagons stick out at the ends on the outside of curves and on the middle on the inside. Also the maximum weight on each axle, though I'd have thought the locomotives were much more of an issue than a tank on a 4-axle bogie wagon.

The details did indeed vary between companies and within companies - for instance there was a massive foulup over building tunnels for the South Eastern Railway's line to Hastings from London, so that until recently they needed special small trains to run on the line.

The companies would have had handbooks giving such details, at least within each company. If anyone did a centralised handbook it would have been the Railway Clearing House, I should think. That's where I would search for such a book.

Of course you'd need to go across the lines of what? 3 or 4? different railway companies to get from say Bovington to Richborough Military Port. Even after Grouping of the companies in 1922, the railway lines would still have stayed the same without a lot of very expensive work.

Routes were sometimes lumped together in categories to give a simplified indication for everyday use.

And here's some equivalent modern documentation - though it won't be reliable for 1916-19.

www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/10551.aspx
www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/10547.aspx

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Hi

Just realised that Tankette Vol46/6 is still available. Go to www.mafva.net for details. (Note that although the back issue list states they can be ordered from Gary Williams, sadly Gary passed away this year. Suggest you contact another of the Association's officers who'll put you on the right track.)

Gwyn

Granty101 · Colonel

Gwyn Evans wrote:
Hi

Just realised that Tankette Vol46/6 is still available. Go to www.mafva.net for details. (Note that although the back issue list states they can be ordered from Gary Williams, sadly Gary passed away this year. Suggest you contact another of the Association's officers who'll put you on the right track.)

Gwyn

I'd contact the editor, Neil Wharton.

Grant

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

Thank you guys.

One nuggest from December 1940 regarding transhipment of tanks:

"[new tank design] must be capable of trans shipment on British and French railways which limits width to 10 feet 6”, height to 6’ and length to 40ft"

that height limit of 6' seems crazy to me.

Granty101 · Colonel

vollketten wrote:
Thank you guys.

One nuggest from December 1940 regarding transhipment of tanks:

"[new tank design] must be capable of trans shipment on British and French railways which limits width to 10 feet 6”, height to 6’ and length to 40ft"

that height limit of 6' seems crazy to me.

Does it say which new tank design they are talking about?

Grant

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

Its part of general design limitations from the General Staff

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Makes one wonder whether the General Staff had realised the Germans had captured all the French railways the previous May.

Lothianman · Colonel

I wonder if they had, in fact, Gwyn. The Continental/French loading gauge is usually more generous. The only UK railway built to that loading gauge was IIRC the Great Central Railway, late in the 19th century, with a connection to the Channel Tunnel in mind. Of course, much of it was closed down and demolished in the 1960s.

Perhaps they were worried about fighting a land campaign on British (or Irish!) soil, or using colonial/imperial railways?

wayne · Colonel

I have my copy of Tankette 46/6 before me. What is it I'm looking for?

I see no discussion of the WWI cars. Only WWII and later. It refers to the "old WWII warflats".

Wayne

wayne · Colonel

Tankette, 46/4 has an article by John Ham (Part 1) on rail transport of tanks. There are some fairly good photos and a drawing in 1/76 scale by Geoff Lacey of a British Railway RectankTransporter Wagon (1916 to 1960) - Plan, side elevation and end view.

Tankette 46/5 continues the series with part 2, also by John Ham, seems to cover the WWII era.

Tankette 46/6 is part 3 by Paul Gandy as you noted.

Wayne

Granty101 · Colonel

vollketten wrote:
Its part of general design limitations from the General Staff

Could they maybe be trying to rule out designs like TOG I & TOG II as impractical??? In the UK, even the Churchill tank, which was accepted for service, had to have the side air intakes/filters removed, as it put the width of the tank outside the UK Loading gauge. American supplied M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman tanks were, AFAIK, able to be transported by rail without modification.

The problem seems not to be the width of the tank itself, but once it was placed onto a the rail wagon, the 'overhang' could foul things along the lineside. Platforms, tunnel walls, mail catch nets, etc.

Grant

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

It's TOG related stuff yeah and I'm concious that I think the UK has one of if not thel narrowest clearances in Europe.

Granty101 · Colonel

vollketten wrote:
It's TOG related stuff yeah and I'm concious that I think the UK has one of if not thel narrowest clearances in Europe.

That's the British for you...lead the way in design and innovation, only for someone to come along and improve it!!! Now, if Brunel had got his way, and we adopted the seven foot gauge system...

Grant

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

It's odd to me that a restriction based on the French rail gauge would be relevant considering what sort of things the French moved.

Granty101 · Colonel

This is the problem with 'out of gauge' loads. The Char FCM 2C was never designed to be moved far under it's own power, so transporting a monster like this was always going to be problematic. I think the French idea of using it's own transport 'dollies', instead of a wagon or road transport, is an ingenuous one. The problem begins when you enemy has cut your rail lines and you can't get it anywhere near to the front.

There is also the problem of having to plan a route where the 'overhang' of the vehicle has to be taken into consideration. i.e. not planning routes that go through stations or close to other line side obstructions. This can lead to problems in it's own right, if you can't get close to the battle front, you can't bring your big tanks to bear!!

Grant

P.S. By the time the Char FCM 2C had come into service, it was too slow, too cumbersome and too outdated....and with the advances in air power, too venerable...but that's another story.

T140 · Lieutenant-Colonel

I assume A7v's were moved by rail or was that not the case?

Granty101 · Colonel

Granty101 · Colonel

Yes T140, an A7V could be moved by rail, as the above photo shows. The Char FCM 2C was, (as far as I'm aware), designed to not need a rail wagon, thus not need an unloading dock. Wooden sleepers were placed under it, the tank jacked up slightly, then the transport dollies unattached, and the tank drove off to combat.

Also, if you compare the length of the FCM 2C against the A7V, you will notice it is much longer. The FCM 2C was also designed as a 'trench crosser'...a bit like the tadpole attachment added to later British WWI tanks to help them cross wider German trenches

Grant

AgaPablo · Sergeant

Of course they were. But usually the ones which most need to be moved by train are the most unfit for rail transport.

Also note that for bulks being transported by rail the problem isn't in it max height but on the squareness of its frontal shape.

-- Edited by AgaPablo on Tuesday 29th of December 2015 09:17:34 AM

Lothianman · Colonel

It would be interesting to know if the Continentals planned or modified their railways to allow particularly large loads on key military routes. Tanks seem a bit late for that but there was plenty of large artillery about in, and before, the Great War. And lineside obstructions could be modified if there weren't too many tight bits.

For one thing, the French and Germans had far more state involvement than the British. (The railways were more or less nationalised in the UK in 1939-45, but it was a bit late then ...)

Another factor is the characteristic British number of road bridges over the line when other countries just expect people to use level crossings. And other overengineering, particularly in something as simple as platforms at stations. Many countries don't use platforms - so that's a big problem never there to begin with. I don't know what they do in NW Europe ...?

Granty101 · Colonel

AgaPablo wrote:
Of course they were. But usually the ones which most need to be moved by train are the most unfit for rail transport.

-- Edited by AgaPablo on Tuesday 29th of December 2015 09:17:34 AM

AgaPablo, the above statement doesn't make sense? Have you written it correctly? I can't imagine an A7V not being transported by rail from Germany to France. Even in this modern day, military equipment, especially heavy things like tanks and MLRS systems are either moved by rail of road transport.

Lothianman is correct, the British rail system is restricted by overbridges and platforms that the continental system doesn't have...therefore the width/height constraint put on UK tank design, doesn't apply to the German, French or (later) Russian tank manufacturers.

Even the mighty Maus had it's own rail transport wagon designed just for it...so you could say, weight is also a factor that can be overcome eventually.

Grant

AgaPablo · Sergeant

Granty101 wrote:
AgaPablo wrote:
Of course they were. But usually the ones which most need to be moved by train are the most unfit for rail transport.

-- Edited by AgaPablo on Tuesday 29th of December 2015 09:17:34 AM
AgaPablo, the above statement doesn't make sense? Have you written it correctly?

Yes, unfortunately for military "movers", as I in fact was for 8 years, cumbersome military equipment is banned to move by road (collapsing civilian traffic, heavy load on highways, having to move through populated areas, etc...). But when it comes to rail, the problems are as severe as when moving by road (the only difference being no civilians being disturbed: in peace time passenger traffic takes precedence): your military train becomes "special transport", that means reduced convoy speed, negating double track movement along railway lines, taking long roundabouts because a single tunnel won't allow for cargo gauges, finding appropriate RO-RO facilities at the RPODs, etc, etc. etc...

-- Edited by AgaPablo on Wednesday 30th of December 2015 09:01:25 AM

Granty101 · Colonel

AgaPablo, my apologies, I have read your statement again and now understand what you meant. You mean that tanks that need to be moved by rail for quicker transportation, are usually 'out of gauge' or too heavy for the rail wagons.

I read/translated 'unfit' to mean broken down or battle damaged vehicles.

Again, my apologies.

Grant

Date: Dec 31, 2015

No need to apologize Granty101. In fact rail cargo gauges are enforced into the design of MBTs, the problem comes when these are modified and bridging equipment, recovery cranes, dozer blades, AAA guns, etc... are added to their hulls and cargo gauges are torn to pieces!

AgaPablo · Sergeant

No need to apologize Granty101. In fact rail cargo gauges are enforced into the design of MBTs, the problem comes when these are modified and bridging equipment, recovery cranes, dozer blades, AAA guns, etc... are added to their hulls and cargo gauges are torn to pieces!

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

This is as close as I have got so far:
At an official meeting on the 9th of July 1940 a vehicle of unspecified height with turret (hull is 7') and 10'3" wide, over 33' long and nearly 70 tons was considered transportable from Lincolnshire and Birmingham to 'Western Ports of Great Britain' by rail although there was still question over branch lines in Eastern England which possibly had implications for home defence.

Granty101 · Colonel

This has been a most intriguing thread, and enlightening topic of conversation.

Grant

TinCanTadpole · Legend

vollketten wrote:
This is as close as I have got so far:
At an official meeting on the 9th of July 1940 a vehicle of unspecified height with turret (hull is 7') and 10'3" wide, over 33' long and nearly 70 tons was considered transportable from Lincolnshire and Birmingham to 'Western Ports of Great Britain' by rail although there was still question over branch lines in Eastern England which possibly had implications for home defence.

Those sizes and the 1940 date point to TOG I, although it might not have weighed as much as 70 tons. Height with turret was about 10ft, maybe 10' 3", which would would be somewhat taller than the loading gauge if carried on a flatcar of the height shown in an earlier post (49.5"). However, it depends whether or not the turret had been added by 9th July 1940 - the design did not originally have one, and the prototype was not completed until October that year.

Granty101 · Colonel

TinCanTadpole wrote:
vollketten wrote:
This is as close as I have got so far:
At an official meeting on the 9th of July 1940 a vehicle of unspecified height with turret (hull is 7') and 10'3" wide, over 33' long and nearly 70 tons was considered transportable from Lincolnshire and Birmingham to 'Western Ports of Great Britain' by rail although there was still question over branch lines in Eastern England which possibly had implications for home defence.
Those sizes and the 1940 date point to TOG I, although it might not have weighed as much as 70 tons. Height with turret was about 10ft, maybe 10' 3", which would would be somewhat taller than the loading gauge if carried on a flatcar of the height shown in an earlier post (49.5"). However, it depends whether or not the turret had been added by 9th July 1940 - the design did not originally have one, and the prototype was not completed until October that year.

Could this be the reason why 'Warwell' wagons were design? The 'well' of the wagon would reduce the height of the tank being carried?? Just a thought.

Grant

vollketten · Lieutenant-Colonel

Granty101 wrote:
TinCanTadpole wrote:
vollketten wrote:
This is as close as I have got so far:
At an official meeting on the 9th of July 1940 a vehicle of unspecified height with turret (hull is 7') and 10'3" wide, over 33' long and nearly 70 tons was considered transportable from Lincolnshire and Birmingham to 'Western Ports of Great Britain' by rail although there was still question over branch lines in Eastern England which possibly had implications for home defence.
Those sizes and the 1940 date point to TOG I, although it might not have weighed as much as 70 tons. Height with turret was about 10ft, maybe 10' 3", which would would be somewhat taller than the loading gauge if carried on a flatcar of the height shown in an earlier post (49.5"). However, it depends whether or not the turret had been added by 9th July 1940 - the design did not originally have one, and the prototype was not completed until October that year.
Could this be the reason why 'Warwell' wagons were design? The 'well' of the wagon would reduce the height of the tank being carried?? Just a thought.

Grant

I expect so yeah. The French for the massive FCM 2C went even further and dumped the bottom going for a direct coupling using the tank itself assuming the body was stiff enough so as not to be distorted by the motion of the railway. It's a clever solution to allow for a higher than would otherwise be allowable vehicle and centre of gravity of the load and probably other logistical assistance.

Each end connects to the tank by means of large bolts into fittings mounted on the vehicle. Obviously this is an extreme solution although it may have been less hazardous as a method of actually getting the vehicle onto the train than other methods. http://www.weaponsofwwii.com/forumfiles/Tanks/mkV.jpg

The Mark VIII Liberty was substantially larger than other tanks and yet the Mk.V* is already seemingly pushing the limits of the train-ferry http://img.imagesia.com/fichiers/f6/wwi-markv-tank-destined-for-russia-being-loaded-onto-a-train_imagesia-com_f6en_large.jpg and that mockup Mk.VI seems to have been pushing att he height restriction https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/MarkVITankWoodenMockup1917.jpg/300px-MarkVITankWoodenMockup1917.jpg

Anyone have any images of the Mk.VIII on a a railcar in the UK?

I should probbaly look for a St.Chamond on a railcar too or have I approached this from the wrong angle? Instead of looking at just tanks to find the absolute maximum permissible sizes perhaps I should have looked at some of those larger railguns - engineers love drawing stuff so perhaps there's more gauge information relating to the movement and carriage of railguns in the UK or France?

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Interesting that you mention the Mark VI mock-up, as I tried to estimate its size just a few days ago, using any likely dimensions as a guide. Most of the WW1 British tank designs were approximately 8ft wide wall to wall, and the tracks were supposedly to have been 75cm - 29.5".

Estimating plank width at 6" suggests a hull height of about 6ft, with total height around 9ft. However, other proportions suggest the planks might have been wider, perhaps 7" - which would push the hull height to about 7ft (similar to Mks I-V?) and overall height to 10' 3"!

Either way it would be rather tall for rail.

Edited: forum trying to make a link out of the abbreviation for Mark VI.

-- Edited by TinCanTadpole on Monday 4th of January 2016 05:44:54 PM

Tonys · Field Marshal

There certainly had to be limits on the French railways for, despite photographic "evidence" tanks with fascines could not be carried on civilian railways and were added to the tanks nearer the Front.

See p92 "Rolling into Action" by Hickey:

"By night the tanks crawled on to a train there , each tank bearing its grotesque bundle on its head; but once on its own truck the tank had to deposit the fascine on the floor of the truck, for otherwise it would have fouled bridges over the railway line. This increased enormously the difficulties of entrainment.".

Must have been a bugger getting them back on at the other end, also in the dark, but suspended on top of a railway truck!!!

Tony