WDLR at Battle of Cambrai

[bkempins]

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?

 

The wider beams on the ramp are clearly visible in the photos. The only reason I can think of is to allow more room on approach and exit.

There were no plans provided, just the text. There was a track plan for Plateau yard, a schematic really, that I plan to include in my book.

 

Yes, the manual is a contemporary one. Most current US tanks have rubber track shoes so they can ride on metal decks. But things like bull dozers and other construction equipment are forbidden on the steel deck cars.

 

The Macaw photos clearly show a thin  deck atop the cross pieces that just has to be steel. So it should be added. Sanding down the deck is more trouble than it is worth.   I think the best approach to model this car is to scratch build the frame and use the buffers and bogies from the car. I can use my laser cutter to add the rivet detail on the side beams (solebars in British vernacular?) This will also allow me to add separate lift rings and more accurate trussing underneath.  I was hoping to avoid this, but it will be worth the extra work. 

 

Now, If the darn Mk IV tanks were 1/76th scale instead of 1/72......

Bernard Kempinski

[TheQ]

Right, and/or breaking them - but I don't know why you thought that is what I was commenting on.

Because if you read thing in a hurry at work (before starting work or I should have 1 minute ago looking at the time ) then you tend to miss read the text!!

Sorry

The Q

[velotrain]

> The wider beams on the ramp are clearly visible in the photos. The only reason I can think of is to allow more room on approach and exit.

 

I think it must be something else, as they're way too thinly spaced to support the tank - which would need to drive over the edge tie to even get out there.  Also, based on the photo I most recently attached, there looks to be maybe 4' of clearance on each side of the ramp that is not available on the wagon - at first I thought the wagon was not even abutting the ramp.  My best guess was a man-way that was isolated from the tanks, but I'm open to other theories (or fact) from our British brethren.  There looks to be some sort of angled brace (jack?) against the solebar very near the ramp.

 

 

> I think the best approach to model this car is to scratch build the frame and use the buffers and bogies from the car. I can use my laser cutter to add the rivet detail on the side beams (solebars in British vernacular?) This will also allow me to add separate lift rings and more accurate trussing underneath.  

 

 

Bernard - I will see what I can do with the Bachmann chassis before/if building my own frame.  I've considered the lift rings, but I'm waiting to see the actual diameter, and if I could live with the cast-on ones, before considering alternatives. 

 

For the buffer, Gramodels makes a buffer with the jacks attached (00401a), and I'm told it's close to the Macaw.  Two notes - instead of a real site, he has a PDF of his "catalogue", which lists (in a confusing sequence, not helped by the page numbers) his products, with a tiny photo of perhaps a tenth of them.  I found a U.K. forum where several others were questioning his business/marketing methods; I'm guessing most of his sales are at shows.  Also - if you email him, be sure to use a proper British-style greeting.  I didn't, and found out he's sensitive about it.  I tend to do that where I know it's an individual, but not when I just have a company name.

 

Although the stock Bachmann bogies are close to one of the types shown on the Macaw tank carrier site, Cambrian has the (C73) GWR Plate Bogies.  Hornby and others have the spoked wheels - Hatton's (I think best for overseas web shopping) shows Bachmann coming out with their own soon, but I had read that the Hornby were fine.

 

Apparently everyone has their own favorite screw link coupling, so you need to sort that out for yourself - if you care.

 

Roxey Mouldings make etched side chain eyes and hooks (4A135) - N.B. you need to provide your own chain.         

 

I plan to build a truss-work master from styrene strip, and hopefully make resin copies.  Not sure if I'll just do a single unit, or a connected set of four - which makes sense as I've ordered four of the Bachmann cars (Hatton's has/had them on special @ 8 quid - I have no idea of what keys to use for a pound symbol).  This will likely not have the various cross-pieces, as I'm more interested in "look and feel" than proto fidelity.  To me it's the side profile that matters.  I've long supported Allan McClelland's approach of "good enough".

 

Charles

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

Very nice.

 

It is good to see somebody doing something different and ding it so well!

 

It is also good that you are taking such trouble to get the details correct.

 

I hope you won't mind if I make a couple of suggestions for things that you may have spotted yourself or they may (as often happens to me) have sneaked under the radar.

 

Firstly, the track. In the prototype photos, the track is dreadful. It is either laid directly on top of the surface on rough gravel and dirt or, as appears in the corner of a couple of photos, buried in dirt to the extent that the sleepers are not visible. It may be that you haven't finished working on the track yet but I can't help but think that the model track, as it is, may be a little too neatly ballasted for the circumstances.

 

I can understand that suitable lightweight small rail section track for these lightly laid lines may not be readily available but a good coating of grot and grime may help disguise the rather too good a quality of the track.

 

Secondly, the model tank loaded onto the wagon sits at just the same angle as the one in the prototype photo but on the real one, there are large (perhaps 4" square) "chocks" front and back. One of them lifts the back end of the tank up in the air.

 

Again, you may have this in hand but just in case I hope you don't mind me mentioning it as the model tank looks a bit as though it is doing a bit of a balancing act. It may be the case that the real tanks wouldn't be moved without these "chocks" as the only photos without them look as though they are during the loading/unloading process. On those, the tanks sit on the wagons at a different angle, with the back end flat down.

 

I hope that you will take these comments in the constructive spirit in which they are intended. With your attention to detail, you probably have them covered!

 

I very much look forward to seeing the overall scene on here in due course.

 

Tony

[velotrain]

_{Tony -}

 

_{No doubt Bernard will respond in due time, but I'd like to address your comments regarding the track.}

 

_{> Firstly, the track. In the prototype photos, the track is dreadful. It is either laid directly on top of the surface on rough gravel and dirt or, as appears in the corner of a couple of photos, buried in dirt to the extent that the sleepers are not visible. It may be that you haven't finished working on the track yet but I can't help but think that the model track, as it is, may be a little too neatly ballasted for the circumstances.}

 

_{I suspect you're confusing the 60 cm WDLR "trench" railways, and the standard gauge lines that the tank wagons ran on.  Some artillery was carried on the 60 cm gauge lines, but never any tanks.}

 

_{Regarding the former, having looked at well over 100 photos, my general observation is that the nature and quality of the track varied widely based on multiple factors - with intended purpose and closeness to the front perhaps being most dominant.  Also - the sleepers may be largely buried, but that doesn't necessarily mean the track is "dreadful" - look at this photo of the NG section in the Westerhock SG transfer yard.}

 

 

 

 

The best view of Bernard's NG track is on page 1.  The rail size may be a bit heavy, but I can see that the ties are reasonably spaced.  The NG is slightly visible in the background on the photos of the tank wagon, and although we see a ruined town/village, the presence of SG track suggests this is some ways removed from the current front lines. 

 

The SG model track shown here is actually more buried than that in the proto photos on page 2.  The proto track has a very "raw" look to it, that suggests it was only recently laid, and with minimal ballasting.  It is valid to note that the SG is flex-track, with a too-close tie-spacing, but the ballasting and overall look is reasonably close to that shown in the photos.

 

Lastly, Bernard's diorama is indeed a WIP, and we should remember that it is being built to illustrate a book intended to inspire and guide others to try modeling military railways. 

 

Charles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

_{Tony -}

 

_{No doubt Bernard will respond in due time, but I'd like to address your comments regarding the track.}

 

_{> Firstly, the track. In the prototype photos, the track is dreadful. It is either laid directly on top of the surface on rough gravel and dirt or, as appears in the corner of a couple of photos, buried in dirt to the extent that the sleepers are not visible. It may be that you haven't finished working on the track yet but I can't help but think that the model track, as it is, may be a little too neatly ballasted for the circumstances.}

 

_{I suspect you're confusing the 60 cm WDLR "trench" railways, and the standard gauge lines that the tank wagons ran on.  Some artillery was carried on the 60 cm gauge lines, but never any tanks.}

 

_{Regarding the former, having looked at well over 100 photos, my general observation is that the nature and quality of the track varied widely based on multiple factors - with intended purpose and closeness to the front perhaps being most dominant.  Also - the sleepers may be largely buried, but that doesn't necessarily mean the track is "dreadful" - look at this photo of the NG section in the Westerhock SG transfer yard.}

 

 

_{Westerhock goods yard.jpg}

 

 

The best view of Bernard's NG track is on page 1.  The rail size may be a bit heavy, but I can see that the ties are reasonably spaced.  The NG is slightly visible in the background on the photos of the tank wagon, and although we see a ruined town/village, the presence of SG track suggests this is some ways removed from the current front lines. 

 

The SG model track shown here is actually more buried than that in the proto photos on page 2.  The proto track has a very "raw" look to it, that suggests it was only recently laid, and with minimal ballasting.  It is valid to note that the SG is flex-track, with a too-close tie-spacing, but the ballasting and overall look is reasonably close to that shown in the photos.

 

Lastly, Bernard's diorama is indeed a WIP, and we should remember that it is being built to illustrate a book intended to inspire and guide others to try modeling military railways. 

 

Charles

 

Charles, I appreciate all you say but you don't need to defend this superb project to me!

 

I think the modelling is really out of the top drawer.

 

I wasn't confused about which tracks I was looking at, I was comparing the real photos of the tank wagons with the model.

 

Everything in the model looks "just right" to me apart from the track. You have hit the nail on the head with your comment about the track being "raw". Those siding were probably laid and then used for a very short time. The model tracks just look a bit too "permanent" compared to the prototype, as if it has been there for ages.

 

My comments were made in a very constructive spirit and I hope that I am not being seen as somebody who picks fault in the modelling of others. I just get a distinct impression that Bernard is somebody who likes to go that extra mile to get things right, which is why I mentioned it at all.

 

Tony

[velotrain]

Tony - sorry I misinterpreted your comment.  You described the track as being so poor, that I felt certain you could only be speaking of the NG lines near the trenches  ;- )  I'll admit the proto track in the photos is "laid directly on top of the surface on rough gravel", while Bernard's scene may represent "more experienced" track (pre-war service to the town?), but with a recently added tank ramp.  For me the identical size and tight spacing of the sleepers on the flex-track is more distracting than the track-bed / ballast.

 

I can very much empathize with your concern at making constructive comments that aren't perceived as criticism, as I know from past experience that it can indeed be a fine and treacherous line to walk - to such an extent that I am ever more hesitant to make the attempt (with occasional slips).  You need to assess the situation and hope the other party will be grateful for the second set of eyes, vs. becoming defensive.    However, based on what you say, I imagine each of our comments may often be stimulated by the one thing that doesn't look just right in an otherwise quite good scene.  Somehow, the better something is overall, it causes our eyes to notice the one component that doesn't seem to be at the same level in our personal perception. 

 

I agree that the overall modeling is of a very high level, and a book on modeling military-related railroads can only result in more products down the line.

 

Charles

 

 

 

 

[bkempins]

Tony - sorry I misinterpreted your comment.  You described the track as being so poor, that I felt certain you could only be speaking of the NG lines near the trenches  ;- )  I'll admit the proto track in the photos is "laid directly on top of the surface on rough gravel", while Bernard's scene may represent "more experienced" track (pre-war service to the town?), but with a recently added tank ramp.  For me the identical size and tight spacing of the sleepers on the flex-track is more distracting than the track-bed / ballast.

 

I can very much empathize with your concern at making constructive comments that aren't perceived as criticism, as I know from past experience that it can indeed be a fine and treacherous line to walk - to such an extent that I am ever more hesitant to make the attempt (with occasional slips).  You need to assess the situation and hope the other party will be grateful for the second set of eyes, vs. becoming defensive.    However, based on what you say, I imagine each of our comments may often be stimulated by the one thing that doesn't look just right in an otherwise quite good scene.  Somehow, the better something is overall, it causes our eyes to notice the one component that doesn't seem to be at the same level in our personal perception. 

 

I agree that the overall modeling is of a very high level, and a book on modeling military-related railroads can only result in more products down the line.

 

Charles

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the delay in replying, I've  been busy trying to wrap this up.  A friend is bringing over a Robinson 8K 2-8-0 for the photo shoot in a few weeks. I hope to have some new macaws to pose in the photo then.

 

The standard gauge track in the foreground is HO code 83. The line predated the war, was repaired by the 11th Engineers. They speak of using local chalk and cinders as ballast, so I used cinders. Numerous photos show standard gauge track in good shape so I didn't distress it much. 

 

The narrow gauge track is Peco 009 branch line track, with hand laid turnouts. It was roughly laid in the prototype, but  009 scale engines and wagons are not very good over bad track, so I had to keep it smooth and level. The Peco track does have somewhat irregularly spaced ties. 

 

On the other side of that layout, the track approaches the trenches and you will see a spot where a shell hit the track.

 

 

 

Here is the Peco track near an ammo dump close to the front.

[bkempins]

Some standard gauge track photos. Plateau Yard, France.

 

 

[PaulRhB]

You do wonder how many of those wagons toppled over with such a high load on temporary track!

[TheQ]

The Tanks themselves had a comparitively low CofG, you could move around inside them  more than in many modern tanks, the bundle on top was little weight compared to the 28 tons of the tanks.

The Q

[bkempins]

I finished the scratch build of the Macaw wagons. I used the bogies from the Hornby and Bachmann cars I had on hand. I also used the buffers from those cars. This scene will be photographed at "night" for the story.

 

[bkempins]

A little better look at the Macaw transporter and a tank covered with tarp and chocked in place. The tank and chocks can be removed to depict an empty car too.

 

[bkempins]

Same shot with fog and antique effects. 

[Southwold]

I've been following this topic since it was started and never felt able to comment because as a subject it it something I know very little about. However, I really must say that you have tackled a very unusual subject with some very exceptionally commendable modelling. It is the sort of work that I absolutely hate#...because it puts any of my meagre efforts well into the shade! The standards of both raliway and scenic modelling are nothing short of breath-taking...you must have the patience of a saint! Well done, thank you for sharing all of this with us, and please keep on doing so!

 

Ken

 

# these last few words of course are very much tongue in cheek!

[velotrain]

Great job on the Macaw's Bernard - it appears that you went for the D type, with the angle iron used on the outside.

What product did you use for the tie-down rings?  They really help to make the side - er, solebars - look three dimensional.

 

It's your call of course, but the data (which you obtained) indicates that loading was done during the daytime - for very good reasons, with only the transport carried out at night.

 

Charles

[bkempins]

They must have did some loading in daytime as we have the pictures at Plateau. 

 

Major Watson's memoir has a lot of information on this. You can read it free at this link:

 

https://archive.org/stream/companyoftanks00watsrich/companyoftanks00watsrich_djvu.txt

 

The section around page 167 has the battle of Cambrai. He also discusses rail loading for other battles.

 

It is an interesting read. Two points that I found useful regarding tank loading.

1. They would drop the fascines on to the deck of the wagon during rail movement and lift them back on the top of the tank when the train arrived.

2. The normal time to unload 12 MkIV tanks at a ramp was 30 minutes if all went well.  It sometimes took much longer.

 

One other point, there were no radios in the tanks. Once the commander launched his tanks into battle, his job was to wander around the battlefield and try to figure out what was happening to his tanks. Very different from today's armor commander. 

[Chris hndrsn]

Bernard,

 

As an aside the British WW1 doctrine for tank training and operations, and how they signalled to each other and the supported infantry, is online at the British Joint Services Command and Staff College http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/jscsc/jscsc-library/archives/first-world-war-british-tank-doctrine.

 

 

Cheers,

Chris

[bkempins]

Bernard,

 

As an aside the British WW1 doctrine for tank training and operations, and how they signalled to each other and the supported infantry, is online at the British Joint Services Command and Staff College http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/jscsc/jscsc-library/archives/first-world-war-british-tank-doctrine.

 

 

Cheers,

Chris

Chris,

Thanks. Interesting to read how the doctrine changed over time.

Bernard Kempinski

[bkempins]

As part of the book I recently finished for Kalmbach Publishing, I built a small (3 by 6 feet) layout in 00/009 scale depicting the railroad activity leading up to the Battle of Cambrai.

Despite the horrific fighting, the European theater of WWI makes a compelling subject for a model railroad. An intense level of standard and narrow gauge railroad activity supporting the field armies presents many operational challenges, while the ruined villages and battle scarred trenches require a different kind of scenic treatment. This model railroad features the railroads of WWI before the Battle of Cambria in the fall of 1917. The first mass use of tanks and aircraft get most of the attention in historic accounts of the Battle of Cambrai, but the innovative offensive depended on extensive and carefully planned American railroad support. The layout focuses on the 11th and 12th United States Engineers near the town Fins during the build up to the Battle of Cambrai.

For the rest of this fascinating story you will have to wait until January 2015, when the book is released. In the meantime check out this short video featuring the layout.

http://usmrr.blogspot.com/2014/05/wwi-layout.html

[Mike Bellamy]

Thanks Bernard - a fascinating project which I have enjoyed following and it's great to be able to see the layout completed - I like the way the video also shows the real railway in France which has been captured perfectly in the model. I look forward to seeing the book in the New Year.

 

 

 

.

[Boghopper]

what a brilliant little video. I too like the way the model footage has been intercut with archive film. Thanks for sharing.

[PaulRhB]

Certainly captures the atmosphere of the photos very well. I like the riveted fascia too. I was at the Bovington tank museum at the weekend to see their new horse to horsepower exhibition and this would fit well with that, telling the story behind the front. I will be looking forward to seeing the book.

[Dave Gas Cupboard]

Absolutely superb. Subject, modelling, photography... brilliant. Thank you

[bkempins]

The book is now out and available from Amazon and several other vendors.

 

If you would like a signed copy please order from www.alkemscalemodels.com

Note the postage for a book will be calculated by PayPal at an incorrect rate. It is actually $15 to the UK and most of Europe. We refund the difference when we ship.