Schooner's (Mostly Maritime) Musings

[Schooner]

Unity has long since made her exit

[Edwardian]

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Or USEXIT?

 

I considered that, except there was no such thing when the 'referendum' took place.

 

Whereas the Leave vote was 1776, there was, of course, no such thing as the USA until Britain recognised its existence pursuant to the 1783 Treaty of Paris.  Prior to that it remained Crown Colonies, albeit increasingly impossible to control, and Mr Washington (I do not think any recognised authority was capable of making him a "general") was still busy trying to "get AMEXIT done". 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Edwardian
spelling

[Schooner]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The OW&W...

First things, I think it's high time the SN&T&SR&AICy received its working name. I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of another where a railway was named - for long at any rate - after its constituent companies on formation, nor for route taken rather than principle destinations served.

 

Given that it really is a North-South, East-West Junction railway...would the Cardinals Junction Railway convince? 

 

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

They put in the Yarnton curve to link the OW&W with the LNWR's Oxford branch and ran trains (or at least through carriages) between Wolverhampton, Worcester, and Euston. 

Ideal, thank you.

 

7 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

...coming down the Bourne valley to Salisbury as well as it instead of heading to Andover. 

Looking at the angles of various dangles, but without yet having looked at topography, I was thinking about crossing the GWR at Pewsey and then down the Avon Valley (the one between the Bourne and the Wylye) into Fisherton Jnc North...?

 

I'm keen to run the line at least within sight of Barbury,  Avebury, Marlborough Mound and of course Old Sarum for bonus points. Any advice on this, including other sites/sights, most welcome :)

 

 

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Given that it really is a North-South, East-West Junction railway...would the Cardinals Junction Railway convince? 

 

Eminently, your eminence:

 

 

[Portrait of Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman, Eduardo Cano, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]

[WFPettigrew]

2 hours ago, Schooner said:

Looking at the angles of various dangles, but without yet having looked at topography, I was thinking about crossing the GWR at Pewsey and then down the Avon Valley (the one between the Bourne and the Wylye) into Fisherton Jnc North...?

 

Yes that could also work.  You do rather find yourself up on Salisbury Plain going north which the MSWJ route avoids to some extent - and that took in Marlborough which is arguably a better goal than Pewsey (sorry Pewsey).  The Avon valley is twisty turny in places - but then my Bourne valley scenario whilst less narrow (despite not being the "big river of Salisbury" that the Avon is) conveniently ignores the bit where the Bourne err isn't there any more and there isn't a valley before you dip back down again to Collingbourne Ducis on the route of the MSWJ.   

 

Yes you would come underneath Old Sarum if you came in that way, could even have a station at Stratford-sub-Castle, which does what it says on the tin.  As for other ancient ruins, well going up the Avon takes you only a mile or there away from Stonehenge and very close to the eastern end of the Avenue and parts of the wider prehistoric earthworks.  Avebury is rather middle of nowhere but could feature if you forgot both Marlborough and Pewsey (sorry again Pewsey) and headed to Devizes - the GW station there was almost underneath the castle. 

 

Would the T&S/Silly Long Name/Cardinal Woolly use the LSW station at Salisbury (given that at this time the GWR had its own station in the city, alongside the LSW)?  It's very tangential to your modelling interests, but how it approached the city would gover the traffic it wanted to gain from its southern extremity.  Coming in to the LSW facing towards London would allow through running without reversal to Southampton and Bournemouth, which probably would be more lucrative than through running to Exeter?  My Laverstock idea does allow cake and eating, in that you can look both west and south from there. 

 

HTH

[Edwardian]

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Eminently, your eminence:

 

 

[Portrait of Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman, Eduardo Cano, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]

 

I think if the railway. like a weather vane, might point in any direction, the Vicar of Bray might be a better choice!

[drduncan]

20 hours ago, Edwardian said:

The super-heavy frigate, not merely in size and number of guns, but in broadside weight, was an interesting idea and the RN evidently realised that it was not a bad compromise. HMS President (1829) - our ship- for instance was considered adequate to serve as a flagship on far flung foreign stations, obviating the need for a line of battle ship and representing a more cost-effective and flexible option. 

 

The Swedes had introduced the type in the late Eighteenth Century as something that could, at need, stand in line of battle because they could carry long 24 pounders. The French got in on the act and we responded by converting the smaller - by then less effective as line of battle ships - 64-gun ships to large frigates. The most famous of which, we have talked of before, being Pellew's Indefatigable, and we had some purpose-built 24-pdr frigates, too. 

 

After AMEXIT, the Americans hit on super-heavy frigates as a smart way of having a US Navy without needing to build expensive line of battle ships. That led us to cut down 74-gun men-of-war to make 32-pdr frigates!

 

Frigates continued in Navy lists until the armoured and protected cruisers, relying on steam not sail, supplanted them in the 1880s. The development of the RN's 'black fleet' post HMS Warrior being a fascinating subject. 

There is a lot to unpack here: war v peace policy and construction; pre and post Napoleonic ship design; impact of new technologies; balanced fleet v threat/scenario specific fleet (to use Richard Hill’s terminology); impact of globalisation on the preeminent sea power; seapowers v naval powers; fleets in being and how to deal with them; frigate and cruiser development; political v military role of navies; globalisation of trade and its impact. 

 

First, President (1829) was a direct copy of the USN ship. This made her immediately obsolete in construction terms (the Stebbings system was already in RN use, as was iron for structural components, both of which permitted larger ships or heavy armaments for a given size and was possible during the Napoleonic period). She was also too big for trade protection and scouting duties - what RN frigates and cruisers were for. Therefore her purpose was not military, it was political - which is why she was used on the N American station.

 

The US super frigates were the creation of a naval power interested in military issues (the means) not a sea power interested in economic matters (the ends of naval power). It was the precursor of the Mahan/Corbett debate that is still alive today. (BTW, Corbett was better at strategy than Mahan. (James should warm to both Corbett and Prof Andrew Lambert is they both trained in law before realising there were greater things out there…)

 

Super frigates were designed to break blockades and carry out commerce raiding. They were not battleship substitutes despite there size. The RN needed lots of frigates for trade protection and blockade work; making them small meant they could be afforded, could be built quicker with less resource and needed fewer crew. We see this carried on right up to the London Naval treaty in 1930 when the US wanted large 8” gun cruisers to support a battle fleet while the RN wanted numerous small 6” gun cruisers for trade defence (because seaborne trade was politically and economically import to the UK in a way it wasn’t for the US). The UK Labour government over rode Admiralty advice and imposed a cut on RN cruiser numbers to get a deal. It was one of the principle causes of appeasement (together with a battle fleet too small to fight 3 enemies at once - hence all the efforts in the 1930s to keep Italy on side and appease Germany while the RN (until c1936) got ready to fight Japan (after 1936 Germany was the main foe).

 

Warrior and the black fleet - yes very interesting period. But warrior was not a frigate! What is going on is the RN has developed a new strategic system to do two different jobs. A power projection fleet to push sea power ashore (and solve the what happens when the opposition refuse to come out and die question - you go in a get them) in the shape of a costal attack fleet (low freeboard, steam powered turret ships) developed from the littoral attack fleet that won the Crimean war (yes, RN won that war too, only it was won in the Baltic, making the armies attempts to gloss serial incompetence the most inappropriately named war in history). Warrior was from the other fleet, high freeboard, sailing with auxiliary steam power able to move long distances and remain at see for long periods to carry out trade (and imperial the two terms being synonymous at this point) defence.

 

I have gone on enough…

 

Suggested reading:

A Lambert, Seapower States

A Lambert, the Crimean war

J Beeler, Naval policy in the Gladstone Disraeli era.

E Grove, The RN since 1815

M Robson, A history of the Royal navy: the Napoleonic Wars

M Farquharson Robert’s, a history of the Royal Navy: WW1

D Redford & P Grove, The Royal Navy since 1900: a history 

D Redford, A history of the Royal Navy: WW2

 

 

[Schooner]

I enjoyed that, thank you.

 

15 minutes ago, drduncan said:

I have gone on enough…

Please always feel empowered to go too far, you're among friends here :)

[drduncan]

You should enjoy the suggested reading then. Lambert’s Seapower states is a good starting point as it covers a lot of the high level political, military and cultural stuff.

[drduncan]

The impact of the London naval treaty is quite fascinating. Not only was it (and the Washington naval treaty in 1922) the catalyst for appeasement, but it also led to a marvellous piece of British duplicity in the shape of the 1935 Anglo German naval treaty. While this annoyed the French and broke the Stressa front - things which weren’t going to stop Germany anyway - it let the Germans have a u boat arm again. This seems mad until you understand the level of deviousness in the Admiralty.
 

Up until the Treaty the Germans were building a highly specialised commerce raiding fleet (think pocket battleships) something that might stretch a resource strapped RN (thanks to naval arms limitation) to breaking point. The clever bit of the treaty was to play on German naval cultural insecurities and persuade them to build a smaller version of the RN (Raeder’s 1945 plan). How is this clever? Because that was the very fleet the RN was best able to defeat - a smaller version of itself.

 

Submarines were not the problem that they were in 1917 thanks to convoy and sonar. The German development of pack tactics on the surface after the summer 1940 was unforeseen (as was the collapse France and fall of Norway which transformed the Strategic maritime picture in a way no one could have foreseen); even so, convoy casualty rates never reached a point where the British war effort was imperilled.

D

[drduncan]

17 hours ago, Schooner said:

Given that it really is a North-South, East-West Junction railway...would the Cardinals Junction Railway convince? 

A bit too catholic for my tastes.

How  about the Mercian and Wessex Junction Railway?

D

[Schooner]

Oh yes, that's much more like it! Dangerously close to MSWJRy, with which it cannot co-exist for obvious reasons, but maybe that's no bad thing.

 

Ties in nicely with the Moonrakers vibe of the Southern section too. There must be  Forrest perjorative term for people from Gloucester (I'd bet my house there's at least one for Cheltenham) we could lean of for a line nickname...?

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Schooner
Second sitting for thoughts now called

[Schooner]

Archival material recently uncovered of the M&WJRy's unusual goods loco:

Cantering Nancy

Edited April 14, 2023 by Schooner
Forgive the typo on the drawing, see photo for correct livery application

[Caley Jim]

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

I think if the railway. like a weather vane, might point in any direction, the Vicar of Bray might be a better choice!

Vicar of Dibbly? 

 

Jim (a've picked ma windae) 

[Schooner]

9 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

Vicar of Dibbly? 

 

..which would at least make sense of Nancy's alleged-but-as-yet-undiscovered sister loco

 

 

Galloping Alice

[Compound2632]

27 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Archival material recently uncovered of the M&WJRy's unusual goods loco:

Cantering Nancy

 

Yes, note the typo on the drawing - easy to set S in mistake for & - but that was got right when the tender was lettered.

[Schooner]

Forgive the cross-edit. Agreed!

[MrWolf]

IIRC there's a kit available for the MSWJR 2-6-0 in 4mm scale. Originally there were two of these locos which were originally bound for South America but the order was cancelled. I suspect that the Beyer Peacock 0-4-4 which @chuffinghell and I conspired to recreate was also a cancelled colonial bargain as I have photos of identical locomotives in Egypt.

Any excuse for an eclectic locomotive roster!

[Schooner]

Si, Roxey I think...

 

 

...yup!

 

https://www.roxeymouldings.co.uk/product/831/7l20-mswjr-2-6-0-galloping-alice/

 

7mm shown, cos it's purdy.

 

As we know, I'm partial to a Mogul. Pointers to early examples would be appreciated.

 

IIRC the first in mainline use was the Adams-designed, Neilson-built GER 527 of the late 1870s

 

...but I think the arrangement was popular in the States from the mid-1860s. Any earlier British designs available than the above?

[Fishplate]

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

Archival material recently uncovered of the M&WJRy's unusual goods loco:

 

it is a very nice looking loco. Without knowing the reason why though, my question to the people that do know is: Why the projection at the front? It appears to make either the footplate/ frames  too long,  or the boiler too short. Probably something to do with load distribution and keeping the leading bogie clear of the cylinders. But if you put a bigger / longer (= more expensive and more weight) boiler on would you get a more powerful loco? Or have I answered my own question . . . . . ?

[WFPettigrew]

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

Oh yes, that's much more like it! Dangerously close to MSWJRy, with which it cannot co-exist for obvious reasons, but maybe that's no bad thing.

 

And in the spirit of (a) Wessex and (b) the indiscriminate appropriating of invasive "joint" lines, why stop at Salisbury?!  Yes you gain access to Southampton etc. but what about then heading south west?  And Hardy's Wessex?  Introducing another major dog leg but Shaftesbury never had a railway line and you could close via the Ebble valley (ish) , then head south, witha whole host of places with double barrelled names, Melbury Abbas, Compton Abbas, Fontmell Magna, Sutton Waldron, various Iwerne this and Iwerne that, and so to Blandford Forum*.  Possibly with a branch to Bournemouth, in the manner of some other much talked about railway that in this multiverse never happened. And then up and over to Dorchester and so to access Weymouth.  Oh and the latter then bags you Maiden Castle if you want to include another ancient ruin (something Stone Age, not something very early from Sharp Stewart). 

 

 

* And were this to have been built, the Flanders and Swann song would have been so much better with all that lot to throw in!

 

Oh and M&W nicknames: Muddled and Wayward?  Mundane and Wandering?  (Well, they were usually rude...)

 

[magmouse]

Crumbs! If the M&W is heading West of Dorchester, I'd better get my application for an Act of Parliament submitted for the line to Netherport. There seems to be something in the air (or the water) in this part of Dorset that makes cartographers a bit woosy, and slope off home for an early tea, so there are a few places missing from the maps: if you start from the coast at Netherport, you'll pass through Up Nether, a halt that serves the village of Yon, the market town of Maiden St Nun, and so to the junction with the GWR mainline at Wanton Abbas.

 

Stephen's proposed route for the M&W seems likely to cross the Netherport line at some point, so I am not sure if we will be in a bitter territorial battle, or a productive partnership. Leastways, an M&W wagon might find itself on the quayside at Netherport.

 

Nick.

[Nick C]

2 hours ago, Fishplate said:

 

it is a very nice looking loco. Without knowing the reason why though, my question to the people that do know is: Why the projection at the front? It appears to make either the footplate/ frames  too long,  or the boiler too short. Probably something to do with load distribution and keeping the leading bogie clear of the cylinders. But if you put a bigger / longer (= more expensive and more weight) boiler on would you get a more powerful loco? Or have I answered my own question . . . . . ?

I think it's to keep the leading truck clear of the cylinders as you suggest - especially as it has inside valve gear and so needs room for that. The leading carrying wheels will make it ride better through corners - which would likely be both tight and badly laid in the area it was designed for. A bigger boiler would indeed be heavier, and also need more water & coal, and there's no piont having a bigger boiler than the cylinders can deal with (though better than the other way around of course!)

[Schooner]

23 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

Yes that could also work. 

Much to think on here...

 

Route as it stood was (very roughly, and un-checked)

 

Swindon - Avebury, via Wroughton and the neighbourhood of Winterbourne Basset for the surrounding villages

(I've not drawn this very accurately, sorry, but you can see the line of villages curving South)

 

Then a Dubious Dogleg, Avebury - Marlborough, via Fyfield (though few, if any, services to stop here)

 

Then diving South again for Pewsey - Upavon

 

and along the valley for Sarum, Fisherton Junction and Salisbury

Ugly curve around Sarum, but frankly it's lucky not to have had a tunnel driven through it so I think we can give it a pass. The route is very nearly the MSWJR (who dat?), but aiming for Salisbury from Swindon makes for some notable differences. No idea if they're remotely plausible differences, route very much a working suggestion only!

 

5 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

...why stop at Salisbury?!

Good question! I think because taking our left turn from reality at the filling-in of the canal from Stroud-Cirencester to gazump the GWR's Gloucester-Swindon folly (hands off, that's our valley!), and sneaking a line up to Cheltenham - a booming spa town at the time - round the back to nick that traffic too I can see our fledgling line facing the same opportunities picked up by those who proposed the MSWJR but a couple of decades earlier.

 

Having got a line from Cheltenham to Swindon, it makes a lot of sense to drive south for access to Southampton. As best I currently understand it, they could do this very neatly by getting to Salisbury, where another connection with the GWR might also open up another set of through-traffic options on the line. As long as they can access Southampton traffic, I don't see they stand to gain enough to put in their own line to the docks...?

 

Likewise other far-flung and exotic destinations (what goes in Wa-hey!mouth stays in Wa-hey!mouth, after all). I need to check, but believe the LSWR had already got the area along the Dorset coast pretty well locked down by this point? Our M&WJR offers a rare route almost directly North to the Midland(s), which could be to the benefit of every company it connects with, but I can't see it being in a position (or of an inclination) to pick a fight with One of the Big Boys by going into direct competition...?

 

Overall route then:

Hub at Cirencester - by the 1880s this will need to be a fairly well-appointed through junction station, with the original terminus goods only?

Mainline terminating services to (clockwise from top) Cheltenham, Oxford, Swindon/Salisbury, Gloucester. Using other companies' stations at all?

Branch termini - in house - at (clockwise from bottom) Tetbury (via Kemble), Nailsworth (via Stroud) and Saul (goods only for the Company deep-water dock on the Ship Canal, @Northroader? )

 

We start with Gloucester - Swindon, via Cirencester. This will upset the GWR, and so I like to think we can count on the support of the MR to access the town/docks.

 

Then comes Cheltenham - Swindon, getting back in with the GWR.

 

Routes to Oxford and Salisbury probably begin around the same time. I don't think it impossible that the LNWR would support the former, the MR the latter, given the opportunity to extend their reach, but I don't think we need go as far as push for joint ownership/management of these new lines. We're doing quite well enough financially, thank you very much.

 

Branches are a bit by-the-by, but Nailsworth will have needed its railway ASAP to keep original investors on side, and so would have been first. Tetbury is a no-brainer, as along as funds allow, and Saul Dock will need a bit of thinking about but could well be part of the national dock-improvement boom of the 1860s-80s.

 

Is that risk of being plausible? If so is quite enough to be getting on with!

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Schooner
PS. Muddled and Wandering, fo' sho'!

[MrWolf]

5 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

 

And in the spirit of (a) Wessex and (b) the indiscriminate appropriating of invasive "joint" lines, why stop at Salisbury?!  Yes you gain access to Southampton etc. but what about then heading south west?  And Hardy's Wessex?  Introducing another major dog leg but Shaftesbury never had a railway line and you could close via the Ebble valley (ish) , then head south, witha whole host of places with double barrelled names, Melbury Abbas, Compton Abbas, Fontmell Magna, Sutton Waldron, various Iwerne this and Iwerne that, and so to Blandford Forum*.  Possibly with a branch to Bournemouth, in the manner of some other much talked about railway that in this multiverse never happened. And then up and over to Dorchester and so to access Weymouth.  Oh and the latter then bags you Maiden Castle if you want to include another ancient ruin (something Stone Age, not something very early from Sharp Stewart). 

 

 

* And were this to have been built, the Flanders and Swann song would have been so much better with all that lot to throw in!

 

Oh and M&W nicknames: Muddled and Wayward?  Mundane and Wandering?  (Well, they were usually rude...)

 

 

That's me thoroughly drawn in by the idea...

 

I do like a convincing fictional railway proposal. My own layout is based (but not an actual model of) a railway that was proposed and planned but never built.

 

Definitely dangerous territory.