The Sinews of War, French Channel Port, 1917

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

I think that strictly the ROD only operated in W Europe.  The Egyptian wagons are marked WD - war department - but that does not mean that they are ROD - a fine distinction I agree.

 

As far as I can see, all wagons, whether for France or Egypt, were marked W (arrow) D, with (only?) standard gauge locomotives marked ROD. Narrow gauge engines had the W (arrow) D insignia.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

I think if you search hard enough you might find some 2ft gauge things, locos, marked LROD.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I think if you search hard enough you might find some 2ft gauge things, locos, marked LROD.

 

I was rather lazily going off the livery "Syd" wore for a while on the Lyton & Barnstaple a few years back.

 

Turning the question round, am I right in thinking that the ROD marking was purely a WWI thing? Photos of ROD engines in WWII show W (arrow) D markings, as far as my brief google shows.

[Nearholmer]

Skimming quickly through pictures of 2ft/60cm military railways in WW1, I can only find two pictures that show British locos with any mark of ownership: one ‘ROD’, but that is in a very obviously posed morale-booster photo that I think might have been used as a regimental postcard, so isn’t to be trusted, and one probable WD (a chap standing in the way). Some simplex tractors have cast number plates ‘LRnnnn’, other simply the number.
 

I think the only combatant that routinely put prominent ownership marks on 2ft/60cm locos was the USA (in big letters), although I think Russian and Austro-Hungarian locos may have had small imperial eagle plates.

 

(Yes, I know I’m not answering the question that as set!)

Edited November 29, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Chen Melling]

23 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

This is absolutely fascinating and invaluable, thank you.

 

When I read "1001 - 3000, Private, open, 10 & 12 tons, oil and grease axles boxes", I thought of this illustration:

 

 

Should be capable of being derived from a Slaters or Cambrian Kits PO wagon, with oil boxes, extended solebars etc.

 

Anyone interested in modelling these half-breeds might find use in the attached two (rather poor) scans of RP&T drawings. I believe I got those from my friend Greg Martin.
 

[Chen Melling]

4 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

I think that strictly the ROD only operated in W Europe.  The Egyptian wagons are marked WD - war department - but that does not mean that they are ROD - a fine distinction I agree.

W.A.H. Brown wrote of his WW1 railway experience in Egypt and Palestine in a 2-part article published in The Locomotive News, 25/01/1921 and 25/02/1921 issues (Vol. VIII, issues 46 and 48, resp.) titled "With the R.O.D. in Palestine". In the article he repeatedly refers to himself, to his colleagues and to their equipment as belonging to the R.O.D.

 

A comprehensive article about railways in this theater of war was published in two very-similar versions in Modern Transport (18/10/1919) and The Railway Gazette (21/09/1920). It includes an organizational chart of what became Palestine Military Railway, which is headed by the "Director of Railways (H.Q. Cairo)", with of his subordinates (through the Deputy Director of Railways) being "Officer i/c R.O.D." and it is mentioned in the text about the track that its maintenance was performed by the R.O.D.

 

Another such article appeared in the Journal of Permanent Way Institution in 1931 where the writer notes that "The operating was done by a Railway Operating Division [...] which ultimately constituted the largest unit of that establishment in the War."

It is my understanding that there was more than one "R.O.D." - one division in Western Europe, another on the Egyptian Front (as part of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force) and who knows where else.

 

[Northroader]

Just to muddy the waters, the full title was “Railway Operating Division, Royal Engineers” and the 2-8-0s we know as RODs, were referred to at the time as “Ministry of Munitions” engines.

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Just to muddy the waters, the full title was “Railway Operating Division, Royal Engineers” and the 2-8-0s we know as RODs, were referred to at the time as “Ministry of Munitions” engines.

 

Or "Military Marys"!

 

The LNWR catalogued the ones it bought after the war as Class MM.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Compound2632

[Nearholmer]

The usual story with military locomotives and rolling stock is that they were ordered (new or requisitioned) by “the ministry” then allocated to users, but it wasn’t always the same ministry or department at Whitehall! The situation during WW1 was blasted complicated, because Whitehall seems to have been forever reorganising , shifting responsibilities around. The Board of Trade ordered some locos, for military production use, but some seem to have ended-up with the military proper. Similarly during WW2, most of the Austerity 0-6-0ST were Ministry of Supply orders, but many were allocated to the WD/Army.

 

The same sort of thing applied in Germany, and I know that during WW2 many of their military locos were ordered by OKW (Military High Command), but others by individual branches of the military, or by Operation Todt. I’d need to read-up of the French ones, and I think that the WW1 Russian ones were ordered by some imperial agriculture branch (they bought oodles of Baldwin petrol mechanicals with double-flanged wheels).

 

There were also requisitions, both centrally managed “harvests” of industrial and public railways, and field requisitions, and captures of enemy material, so simple it wasn’t.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Nick C]

On 28/11/2022 at 14:37, Northroader said:

The illustration you give, James, would be for a special WD build 12ton open in the 30001-31100 series, as it has the extended frames to accommodate the brakeman’s cabin (vigie) The 1001-3000 series ex PO wagons wouldn’t have the longer frames, but that’s not to say a model kit for one would be a simple basis for doing one with a vigie, as in your illustration.

 

p.s. To take Kevin’s story forward, here’s a picture of two old wrecks on Cowes river, one called “Ryde” and one called “Northroader”:

 

 

both born around the same time, and both with uncertain futures!

 

Sadly I think Ryde's fate is now sealed - she's much too far gone to contemplate saving. There was a fresh attempt a few years ago, but that failed, and most of the superstructure collapsed. I believe she is still there, but 'awaiting dismantling'...

[Andy Hayter]

Just reading "Robinson Eight-Coupled" Locomotives - Jeremy Clements.

 

In the So it was the War Dept.  appendix is a list of locomotives "loaned" to the war department - note not requisitioned.  Perhaps a demonstration of loyalty and support for the cause.  None of Robinson's GCR 2-8-0s fell into that category contrary to what I suggested earlier.

 

So it was the War Dept that ordered the 540 2-8-0 locos.  Not all were delivered since the war had ended before the orders (6 constructors) could be completed but deliveries were still being taken in 1919.  Remember that although hostilities ceased 11/11/1918, the war did not strictly end until the signing of the Versailles Treaty.  

 

Of potential interest to James, many of these were shipped to Dunkerque or Calais and all were then sent to Calais Audruicq depot - presumably to have rods and chimneys fitted.   Because of the number of different constructors, some of the ROD locos were fitted with Ross poppet safety valves.  

 

Edit to correct the strange inclusion of a phrase I had not intended to be there.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Andy Hayter

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

In the So it was the War Dept. is a list of locomotives "loaned" to the war department - note not requisitioned.  Perhaps a demonstration of loyalty and support for the cause. 

 

Does that mean it was the railway companies not the War Dept that chose what engines to send to France? That could explain a good deal...

[Andy Hayter]

Quote from the appendix:

 

It would appear that for the most part, the loan contingent comprised machines that the owning companies could mostly do without rather than locomotives of size and competence best suited for use in France. ....

[Edwardian]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Does that mean it was the railway companies not the War Dept that chose what engines to send to France? That could explain a good deal...

 

4 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

Quote from the appendix:

 

It would appear that for the most part, the loan contingent comprised machines that the owning companies could mostly do without rather than locomotives of size and competence best suited for use in France. ....

 

Well, except that the NER gave up a whole new class of 0-8-0s and the GWR loaned many Dean Goods that were in excellent shape. IIRC, the Dean Goods sent represented just about every lot, including the most recent of 1899, so they were far from elderly locomotives at the time. Further, the whole class had B4 boilers, in most cases fitted relatively recently, and a number were, again IIRC, even superheated. A number had, thus, been renewed only months before being loaned the the govt. and represented the most recent iteration of the current 6-coupled goods class on the system. 

 

That said, type of loco chosen by the railway companies is a different issue from that of age or condition. The GWR might have felt it could spare 0-6-0s more than other,  heavier, goods classes, like the 2-6-0 Aberdares or the modern 2800 class 2-8-0s, whereas a heavier type, like the GCR 2-8-0s might have better met the military requirement. The GWR did send a handful of Churchwood Moguls, however. 

 

We have seen how 12-wagon tank trains in the Cambrai build-up needed to be doubled-headed by two 0-6-0s. BTW, I don't know if the wagon stock was air-braked, but I notice the use of a Belgian Westinghouse fitted 0-6-0 as train engine in the pictures I've seen, in each case piloted by a Dean Goods, which I understand were never Westinghouse fitted in France.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Edwardian
Spelling!

[Andy Hayter]

In fairness to the author he does later in the paragraph comment that the GWR loans comprised the only new locos offered for loan as well as the fact that the then elderly  2301 class performed well despite their age.  But together these locos represented 73 from over 500 loaned - plus the further 500+ that the WD ordered as the Robinson 2-8-0s.  Delivery of these started in 1917 and despite a relatively short working period in the hands of ROD, many seem to have been repatriated in rather poor condition.   

 

The inability or difficulty to sell or later rent these to the railway companies demonstrates the issues and those that were sold initially were often those built but never delivered.  So the GCR snapped up 3 Gorton builds, knowing how well they had been constructed and that unlike many others they had copper and not steel boilers.

[Welchester]

15 hours ago, Edwardian said:

The GWR did send a handful of Churchwood Moguls, however.

 

Claiming, I believe, that they were the equivalent of other companies' eight-coupled locomotives.

[drmditch]

2 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

  So the GCR snapped up 3 Gorton builds, knowing how well they had been constructed and that unlike many others they had copper and not steel boilers.

 

I think you mean fireboxes, not boilers.

The story of steel fireboxes in the UK is quite a long and complex one.

Copper has a higher capacity to transmit heat.

Worth noting that the Bullied boilers, and the modern Tornado had/have steel fireboxes.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, drmditch said:

The story of steel fireboxes in the UK is quite a long and complex one.

Copper has a higher capacity to transmit heat.

Worth noting that the Bullied boilers, and the modern Tornado had/have steel fireboxes.

 

Copper is also easier to work into the complex shapes required for a firebox, an important consideration for many years. The use of steel for those much-intimidated wartime boilers was no doubt due the unavailability of copper. Is the use of steel rather than copper for Tornado's firebox down to expense, or to modern manufacturing methods, or even H&S?

[Northroader]

The conductivity of copper is higher than steel, but in practical application, studies have shown that there’s a gasfilm close to the surface of the firebox, which affects the conductivity to the extent it doesn’t really matter whether steel or copper is used.

[Corbs]

On 27/11/2022 at 17:37, Northroader said:

You may also spot that the wagon in your picture,  WD 37819, which I see still has the MR cast numberplate on the solebar, also has a mention as in one range of wagons converted to carry cast concrete pillbox sections, which accounts for the “lime wagon” appearance, I suppose.

(presumably the cast numberplate indicates that the the wagons remain the property of the railway company, and are just on loan “for the duration”, which is why they were all shipped back after the war)

This has been discussed elsewhere, but just to clear it up - Stephen's original description of a 'pill box' as a locker wagon for ammunition etc. is the correct one.
I am 90% sure the article describing pill box wagons as being for delivering concrete sections is erroneous and the source comes from the 1920s when memories may have started to blur.

The sources closer to the event confirm 'pill box' as meaning 'like a box of pills' with lids rather than for concrete emplacements. 

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Corbs said:

This has been discussed elsewhere, but just to clear it up - Stephen's original description of a 'pill box' as a locker wagon for ammunition etc. is the correct one.
I am 90% sure the article describing pill box wagons as being for delivering concrete sections is erroneous and the source comes from the 1920s when memories may have started to blur.

The sources closer to the event confirm 'pill box' as meaning 'like a box of pills' with lids rather than for concrete emplacements. 

 

I've just finished writing up the Midland conversions for an article for the Midland Railway Society Journal on the development of Midland high sided wagons from 1901 to 1923. I've gone for the "like a box of pills" explanation without committing myself to what they were intended to carry; I only said that much since I had included a table of Midland wagons to France based on Sherrington's article, where he uses the term and gives the bogus concrete explanation. I'm not now sure I've seen the term used anywhere else, so it's probably all bogus!

 

But I don't believe I've seen the ammunition explanation from any contemporary or near-contemporary source. 

[Corbs]

There was an article in The Engineer (though I don't have a copy) that showed a GCR wagon with the same conversion and described as being an ammunition locker.

 

The Engineer, Dec 12, 1919, pages 581 and 590 regarding the work of the Gorton and Dunkinfield Workshops of the Great Central Railway where 3267 10 ton wagons were converted for use overseas:
The company adapted, by affixing screw couplings and other fittings suitable for continental use, 2767 10-ton wagons, and a further 500 wagons, similarly adapted, were fitted with hinge tops-as shown in figure 88, page 590. These wagons were used overseas for conveying ammunition. Thirty-five goods brakes with a tare of 11 tons 11 cwt., were built for use in Egypt.

 

Not contemporary, but IIRC in the GWR wagons bible the O17s are explicitly described as being ammunition lockers.

[Chris hndrsn]

WRT the "pillbox" ammunition wagons, there is a factory image out there in the wild of one prior to handover to the Ministry of Munitions for the War Office.   I have a copy of the image I will try to dig out over the weekend. From memory, they are a five-plank wagon with, as previously mentioned, the appearance of a lime wagon, except with multiple hinged lids. Being an ex-soldier, unlike Small Arms Ammunition and artillery shells, I would suggest they were primarily used for dangerous commodities, not necessarily packaged for inclement weather exposure.  This may include TNT, barrels of gunpowder, detonating chord, detonators and so forth, with the important note that detonators and initiating compounds must be packaged and transported separately from explosives.

[ChrisN]

The Dangerous Goods Regs now explicitly state that detonators and explosives should be packaged and even sent separately.  This was not always the case, and was only brought in after a fire in an explosives lorry that had both on board.  I believe the driver and second man were at a safe distance watching when it went 'BANG!'

[Edwardian]

Limited progress at our French channel port:

 

 

I discovered Rapido's WD ex-GW wagons the other day. They had one of the opens left at Monk's Bar.

 

So, now we have the Planet Industrials Kerr Stuart Victory, the new Rapido open and a Bachmann Parrot.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 17 by Edwardian