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

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.

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

I would say that the consistency in style across several hands up to WW1 is probably more to do with the education system (and the system around Swindon) at that time than anything else. D

These are the standard gauge books. There are only 3 broad gauge wagon stock books that the NRM admit to. The highest BG number there is 12000, build date Apr? 20, 1889, but this is clearly not the end of the run as it seems far to convenient a number or finish on. D

@Compound2632 You are quite right. Here are the correct entries.

So it is ?47?. The first and last numbers are rounded so possibly 5, 6, 8, 9, 0 maybe 2. The brake lever guide is to the left of the w-iron, not the right where one would expect it for a 9ft wheelbase wagon, suggesting it is a longer body and longer wheelbase. Looking at the possible numbers the wagon stock books give: 5470: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,16,0, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Jan 21 1862, cond 31/8/1885 5472: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,15,0, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Jan 21 1862, cond 25/6/1906 5475: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,14,0, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Jan21 1862, cond 23/4/1910 5476: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,17,2, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Dec? 3 1861, cond 13/7/1912 5478: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,16,0, grease a/bs, Ok oil ab fitted Apr? 1908, 10ft w/b, built Glos Wgn Co Dec 31 1862, cond 18/5/1896 5479: 17.6x7.3x0.11, wood frame, single brake, tare 4,16,0, grease a/bs, 10ft w/b, built ?Glos Wgn Comp? Jan21 1862, cond 31/8/1885 6470 isn't a 1 plank. 6472 isn't a 1 plank. 6476: 15.6x7.5x0.11 1/2, wood frame, double brakes, tare 4, 4, 0, grease A/bs, 9ftf w/b, built Worcester lot a, 30 Aug 1865, cond 14/10/1905. Double brakes rules this one out. 6478: 15x7x0.11, wood frame, double brakes, tare 4,10,3, grease A/bs, 9ft w/b, built ? could be Gloucester Wagon? 1867, no lot number, cond 1/4/1905. Double brakes rules this one out. 6479: isn't a 1 plank. 8470-9 are all 'timber trucks', so not them. 9470-9 are loco coal wagons so not them either. So one of the batch 5470-9 seems the best bet. These do seem to have been built by Gloucesters, so can anyone with access to the Gloucester records confirm or point to any surviving builders photos? Hope this is useful to the other GW wagon enthusiasts out there... Duncan

If I remember the events correctly (no, I’m not that old, but more that it’s not my area of history), the USS President was so badly damaged that she couldn’t be commissioned into the RN, so to ensure the name went into the RNs books (and to ensure the noble traditions of rubbing ex enemies noses in it aka ‘showing off the prizes’ could continue) an exact copy of the President was made and it was this that entered service with the RN. If my recollection of one of Prof Andrew Lambert’s anecdotes is correct HMS President was used as the Flag Ship of the N America station during several periods of tension with the USA just to make sure the don’t mess with us message was received loud and clear in both the USN and Washington DC….

Anyone got good enough eyesight to read the number? I get *47*….

From memory, because I’m away from my laptop and the images I have of the GW wagon stock books, the wheel base for 1 planks was 10ft for the wagons over 16’6” internal length, 9 ft for 16’6” and less internal length. Now I haven’t studied every entry, but out of c18,000 in total I didn’t find a 1 plank wagon with an 11ft wheelbase. I’ll check my notes when I get home to confirm and report back. Duncan

Oh it’s also worth taking the late and much lamented Ian Rice’s advice to keep a special drill for top hat bearings/horn blocks - a 1/8 one for driving wheels and a 2mm one for pony, bogie or tender wheels. Don’t use them on, or for anything else. D

James, While I can understand your frustration at the design issues for your printed loco, you are being a bit unfair as to the quality of Chris Gibbon’s products - they are second to none. I’ve built a few of his gear boxes and chassis kits and while they can seem intimidating when you read the instructions, if you do what he says, in the order he says it, your are almost certain to get a smooth running end product. (I know, who’d have thunk’d it… instructions that work and modellers that follow them, it will never catch on….) With regard to holes being deliberately under size, be very grateful - the alternative is something that will run like a a bag of spanner’s. If you don’t have a set of cutting broaches I think Expo tools will sell you a set of 6 that will do the job (and quite a few other ones) for under a tenner - they are worth getting. As to a chamfer on the gearshaft - it’s just to help you avoid pushing it on wonky. There are two ways to do this. First, pop the shaft in a drill, set in motion, gently apply file for a second or two and hey presto a chamfer. But you can also fire the file into anything to hand, like your hand, or other bit of soft tissue… so I don’t recommend this method. Second approach is hold shaft in your non master hand between thumb and fingers so you can twist it, in the other hand grasp your file (bastard cut if you must but second cut preferred), stroke across edge of shaft at 45 degree angle while twisting it as already mentioned. Do it three times (but no more) and you’ve done it. If I have been teaching you to suck eggs, sorry, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel (does the WNR have such things?) and it really isn’t an oncoming train (because the printed locos aren’t running yet…if it is a train well done for getting the bast&@d things running….) Duncan

I’ll take some and post them by end Thursday. D

A pulley and some lifting slings to get the boards through the loft hatch is an excellent idea and one I use. Duncan

Filing prints…Oh, but the dust went everywhere

Re filing 3D prints: due to an insurmountable design opportunity I had to remove huge amounts of under frame bracing (to stop the damn thing going banana shaped) from the underside of my 48ft brake tri-comps. I used a dental burr in a mini drill. No cracking. For more control I tried using a small pillar drill with a parallel sided dental burr type thingy. Worked perfectly and again no cracking. Hand filing a 3D printed loco chassis- cracked the thing…. Duncan

Ah, I see. Many thanks! D

I like Pelham Square… D

Chitu upgrade kit?

I know… At the risk of thread hijack and being off topic, the two worst regarded areas of modern British history seem to be: in penultimate place, naval history (I can think of 5 named naval history posts outside of professional military education) in the UK…and in last place: railways, one named post (at York obv) and no more to the best of my knowledge. When the history of mass delusion and fantasy (aka history of magic) is more highly regarded then you should be seeing warning signs. Of course there are more naval and rail historians out there, just hiding in plain sight under different colours! Vexation concluded. Duncan

Ah boilers, just a bit of tube…won’t be difficult etc etc…(tries to ignore the carcass of and reproachful looks from of what is supposed to be an original condition Dean Goods in the farthest recess of the workbench.) I should also make clear that as Stephen @Compound2632 is effectively my sole source of MR knowledge (how I treasure my ignorance but he keeps making very good models and interesting posts, damn him), I do not include him in my tirade against poor scholarship in the railway researchers club. But as Adam has pointed out elsewhere (on the Castle Aching thread, I think) it is a problem that as a community we need to get on top of for the sanity of our successors - and as a historian (but not of railways - got to keep personal and professional separate) it is something that vexes me…a lot. Duncan

Mid Victorian tender locos….that got me thinking: GWR Standard/Armstrong goods (Nucast partners) (clearly goes without saying a superior class of loco) or (holding one’s nose….) a MR Kirtley goods (also Nucast partners) Both have lots of lovely outside cranks that will whirl around as they waddle along a siding. I’m also given to understand that there was a time, lost in pregrouping mists of rumour and confusion (damn all authors who do not reference their sources properly and publishers who think readers don’t like footnotes), when the MR were not beyond the pale as they had green locos…. D

I must admit that with your double defection (7mm and MR) I thought you were off the market. I’ve a nice N6 loco coal wagon print (without the later side extensions) coming on and a host of 1 plank variations - just got to sort out the single shoe brake gear….and sift wheat from the chaff in the GW wagon stock books because I know how much you like your accurate wagon histories. 😀

Please?…. (Make those damned mods you promised) or…..something else? D

Jerry, DCC sections…do you mean power districts? Best Duncan