Bon Accord

The other reason certain specific operators stuck with steam reciprocating engines was a requirement for sustained low speeds coupled with the need for reasonably rapid engine movements with no limit on their number, which is where turbine and motorships were at a disadvantage. Hence how many tugs, dredgers, salvage vessels etc were still built with up and downers even into the 1960s, whilst recip powered cable ships were favoured until well after the war. When the latter were working cables, for the purposes of station keeping they had to run at very low revs - often astern as the cable sheaves were on the bow - for long periods. When BR built their last paddle steamer in 1953 it didn't even have a Triplex, she was instead fitted with a two cylinder compound...

Well you blatantly did, otherwise why bring the history of David MacBrayne into your answer to the OP which only asked of the IOMSPC and the railway steamers? Particularly since it's followed by the comment "Combinations of vested interests and government interference management probably put a stop to what would have been good fleet management." As I have stated in my reply, MacBrayne's "fleet" management was actually rather good and forward thinking for it's time.

You're quite wrong. MacBraynes - whose history you list above - was in fact an early proponent of modern technology including internal combustion, with all of their vessels built from 1930 onwards being exclusively diesel powered. By way of stark comparison; the Cal in Calmac (Caledonian Steam Packet) was the former BR/LMS/LNER owned vessels and in contrast they were exclusively building steam powered vessels - with one exception - until the 1950s. In terms of propulsion technology it's also worth nothing that the CSP/railways built their last paddle steamer in 1953, whereas MacBraynes built their last paddler a full 65 years before, way back in 1888. It's therefore quite clear that the railways were just as technologically and ideologically conservative when it came to motive power at sea as they were on land. It's also worth noting that the two ships being built at Fergusons are to have dual fuel (Diesel/LNG) machinery, this was to be a first for a UK flag passenger vessel and therefore new territory for the MCA and that in itself was one source of many problems. Ironically one beneficiary of some of the to/from between CMAL/Fergusons/MCA over regulations is P&O Cruises as their two most recent vessels can run on LNG.

Not as advanced as you might think Mark. They were fairly rudimentary but very useful for running stern first into awkward ports. Well used by ships on the Dover Ocean and elsewhere. They were usually controlled from a wheel on the fo'c'sle, so an AB/QM had to be down there to operate it with instructions from the bridge being either by pea whistle, loud hailer or telegraph. Some newer ships had controls on the bridge but by that point everyone was moving over to bowthrusters, although I believe some of the 60s/70s Sealink ferries on the channel had both thrusters and a bow rudder, the latter so they could proceed faster astern and retain steerage. Regarding advanced technology I read somewhere that one of the pre war IOM steamers had a steam turbine bowthruster, now that's something I'd have liked to have seen and you have to wonder how it worked! I have it in my head it was the 1927 Lady of Mann, but I can't remember for certain.

That's not what the official report states. Where have you got the idea that they went stern first out of the loch? The pier in Stranraer is aligned on a NW/SE axis, and with the ship being a stern loader her bow would have been pointing into the wind on departure so no need to turn in the loch. The old loading ramp was on the south side of the pier, therefore sheltered from any swell. Once she was in difficulty in the North Channel there was an attempt to run stern first back into the loch using her bow rudder to steer, thereby keeping her bow into the wind and minimising further water ingress through the by-then smashed in stern gates. However, the crew were unable to remove the securing pin from the bow rudder to free it due to heavy seas breaking over the fo'c'sle continuously.

As Princess Victoria was a stern loader there would have been no need to leave her berth stern first and even less to leave the Loch in such a manner. At that time the railway steamers berthed in Stranraer itself, with the entrance to the Loch some 8 miles away. The wind at the time was a NW gale which wouldn't been so noticeable in the Loch as she headed out, that would only have become apparent as she rounded Milleur Point into the North Channel. The wind speed later increased to hurricane force (120mph). The BOT report into her sinking makes it clear her stern doors were stoved in after she left Loch Ryan. As well as admitting enough water to cause her to list significantly, it also precipitated a cargo shift which made things worse at which point she was beyond saving. Concern had previously been expressed by crews as to the vulnerability of her stern doors - which were of the sliding variety and little more substantial than a sheet steel fence - as well as the capacity of the scuppers to remove water from the vehicle deck.

Carriage of electric cars as cargo is now causing real concern, particularly in the ferry industry where the potential for a major incident is high considering how many of the things are carried now, something that's only going to get worse. The current advice on tackling an electric car fire seems to be either let it burn or effectively immerse it with large volumes of water, neither of which are entirely ideal on the enclosed car deck of a car ferry. I have seen it suggested that the risk of an electric car immolating itself is less than the petrol/diesel version and whilst that might be true we can at least put the latter out! I know the major players within the UK ferry scene and MCA are actively talking about how to mitigate the risk, but unless electric car technology improves to either limit or negate "thermal runaway" then restrictions on carriage are likely the only answer.

Same system applies with the despatch of LNER services at ScotRail stations north of Edinburgh (i.e. to Aberdeen and Inverness); it's all booking office staff with the exception of the larger stations like Aberdeen.

For the non coupling end on mine I cut the NEM pocket down to about 1/4 of it's size, then clipped the NEM tail on the plough back a similar amount and glued them together. This then puts the ploughs roughly in the correct position with their extremities level with the buffer beam. The guard irons on the bogie - which seem to portrude too far for my eyes - are therefore touching the inside of the ploughs. As you say, I think it'll still be very difficult to fit the bufferbeam detail unless the intention for the model is to remain entire static which is no use for most of us. For the (other) coupling end I cut some outer ploughs from the snowplough assembly and glued them onto the sides of a standard Bachmann short NEM pocket/coupling. These do portrude slightly ahead of the bufferbeam but nowhere near as bad as supplied and does make that end workable. Some trial and error may be required with bracing the blades slightly to make them robust for use and I think I'll have to do a bit more there in that regard. I've one of the original release railfreight 37/5's from 2004 which not only has all three ploughs fitted at the non coupling end (and two fitted at the coupling end) plus all the bufferbeam detail added and it's still able to work on the layout; the current state of affairs with what is supposed to be a "top end" model is therefore particularly frustrating and poorly thought out by the designers.

Thanks. That is really exceptionally poor design on Bachmann's part considering how many will want to have the 'ploughs and the other bufferbeam detail. Particularly considering it was possible on the older models.

Some retailers had them in stock on their websites last week. I bought one myself at the Perth show and having got it home have a query for anyone who might help. The factory supplied snowploughs go into the NEM pocket, however it looks to me as if they sit far too proud of the bogie such that fitting any of the other factory supplied details (couplings, hoses etc) seems near impossible. Has anyone else found this with this new model? I have checked that the snowploughs are fully home in the supplied NEM pocket. The only two solutions I can see is removing the NEM mount and fixing the 'ploughs directly onto the bogie front or simply doing without.

Received my sound fitted SPTE example today, going to give it a test tomorrow. It'll run nicely with my other Provinicial liveried Scottish example. Some of the stamps on the package were interesting; I'm no Philatelist, but some of them looked to be of some vintage? A nice touch regardless. Thanks to Charlie and all the fellows at Realtrack.

In reference to box boats, once you've done some time in them you develop a natural habit of glancing up at the serial number of a container every time you walk past one or one passes on the road. You then find yourself thinking "oh that's owned by so and so" depending on the letter prefix, then if it's a reefer box (refrigerated container) the older gits amongst us will cast a weary eye to see if it's a "blown air" box rather than simply plugged in electrically. Similarly, I remember one summer being 2nd mate in a freight Ro-Ro running around the Baltic, principally loading in Germany for discharge in Finnish ports, this being part of the Andrew Weir Empire. Northwards the loads were brand new luxury cars in the lower holds with containers and articulated trailers above; the latter mostly from German companies. Southbound it was empties and (1 tonne) rolls of paper by the thousand. In Germany trailers have their own registrations as opposed to the British method of the trailer adopting the registration of whichever tractor unit is towing it at the time. We usually left Germany every 4-5 days, it being a 30 hour steam each way. I spent 4 months on that run going back and forth as they couldn't find me a relief, by which point I began to realise I was recognising a LOT of trailer registration numbers as they'd be going back and forth as often as me. I then began to wonder that if I didn't go home soon I wouldn't be doing it on two legs but probably in restraints. Trip lengths at that time on that type of run weren't supposed to be more than 2 months away. Thankfully the weather was excellent (Summer), the beer was cold, the natives sociable and we were regulars in some wonderful places of which I have very fond memory; particularly Lubeck and Hanko as we used to overnight in each port.

I received mine back in January. Have you emailed directly?

Not forgetting the enormous elephant in the room regarding personnel; even if significant investment is made, just where are the three services going to get the people to operate all this kit? The RN in particular is finding it impossible to stand still in manning terms right now - and they've had serious problems in that regard for decades - quite how they're going to man the promised additional cheapo ships is puzzling many observers. RFA is in an even worse situation.

If the T45 programme was anything to go by then they'll initially plan to build six to replace the existing T45. Then by the time the contract to build is let it'll be four with an option for two, and by the end of it we'll end up with three. I wonder why they chose to return to the T8X designation, revived after nearly 60 years rather than T4X. Maybe it just sounds more flash to those in MOD.

I thought that was the entire point of playing with trains?

Both are still there and both are still in use. The resignalling project removed the semaphores, the boxes however remain with their respective responsibilities. Stirling North even still has a few manually operated discs amongst all the colour lights and electric point motors under the OHLE.

Stirling again. Stirling North (48 levers) and Stirling Middle (96 levers) are both visible from the station as they're sited directly North/South.

Not in England, but Stirling must have been one of the last large and busy stations to be near totally signalled with semaphores; four through platforms, four bays and one terminating platform. All swept away alas circa 2010. Both large mechanical boxes are still there and in use; Stirling Middle controlled most of the station and had approx. 100 levers.

A few of them did, there were also a few examples that ran around with white Inverness stags.

37425 and 37403 ready for the off at Bo'ness yesterday. 37025 was on the rear.

The Ballachulish ferries were of the turntable type, as were those at Kyle. The former of course replaced by the bridge and the latter by landing craft style Ro-Ros of the type well used by Calmac on their low volume routes. The Kyle ferries were operated by the Caledonian Steam Packet (i.e. LMS then BR) and were a solitary outpost of the CSP in what was otherwise MacBrayne's kingdom.

A couple of pictures on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=563454599239020&set=pcb.563459872571826

John, Your post made me think about anchors. Hidden away in most of the old seamanship books there was usually a treatise as to which anchor you should use in which hemisphere. As I remember from the verbal torture that was 2nd Mates prep, it should always be the port anchor in the Northern Hemisphere as when the barometer plummets the wind freshens and veers; you'll therefore swing in a clockwise direction, so if required you can then drop the starboard anchor and keep a clear hawse. The opposite of course in points south. Not that anyone pays any attention to the above these days, when deciding which anchor to use it's usually dependant on which one they used last time. I'm sure I bored to tears some third mates/cadets with all this in times past, that and the difference between Geodesic Circles and Great CIrcles and why the former is effectively meaningless in a navigational context. The hefty tome that was Brown's Almanac used to be full of all sorts of interesting and mostly irrelevant tit bits like this.