Bon Accord

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Something to keep in mind is that there is a world of difference between steam reciprocating engines and steam turbines. Steam reciprocating engines were woefully inefficient, maintenance intensive and really didn't have that much going for them other than they were relatively easy to manufacture (hence their continued use in a lot of wartime austerity ships, corvettes etc). Steam turbines on the other hand did have positive attributes that offset their lower efficiency such that prior to the 1973 oil crisis there were categories of ship for which there was no definitive answer for whether steam or motor was better. Many of the ocean going container ships built prior to the oil crisis (or still under construction) were steam turbine powered as it was easy to get very high shaft horsepower, they were very fuel tolerant and things like maintenance costs pretty good compared to an equivalent motor ship. After the oil crisis and as diesels were able to operate reliably on fuel grades such as 380cSt HFO steam turbine died a death except for niche applications such as LNG carriers where they operated with boil off gas.

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...

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Err, about what? I made no claim as to which company adopted which technology.

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.

9 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

The reasons might be lost in the mists of time, and the murky history of what became CalMac Ferries.

 

1851 David Hutcheson -->

1878 MacBrayne's -->

1923 Caledonian Steam Packet Company

1928 Coast Lines and the LMS -->

1948 British Transport Commission & Clyde Shipping Services -->

1969 Scottish Transport Group -->

1973 Caledonian MacBrayne

 

Combinations of vested interests and government interference management probably put a stop to what would have been good fleet management.

Deju vu?

Cough, did someone mention Ferguson Marine?

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.

12 minutes ago, MarkC said:

A bow rudder? For the time, that would have been advanced technology, certainly on a seagoing vessel. The idea of using it as you suggest they wanted to makes good sense, although quite how effective it would have been in mountainous seas is another question. Even a modern bow thruster would struggle, I think.

 

Even today, to get onto the foc's'le in bad weather can be a potentially lethal business - nothing changes there...

 

Mark

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.

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Princess Victoria’s captain had little choice; he had to leave the berth at Stranraer to prevent damage to the ship in the swell coming up the Loch, and the wind combined with the swell made turning the ship in the Loch impossible.  The nearest effective shelter was in fact at Larne, his destination anyway, and the plan was apparently to go astern out of Loch Ryan and then head for Larne bow-on to the seas.  The stern door failed almost as soon as he cleared Milluer Point into open sea, before she made any progress forwards, and from that moment on the ship could not be controlled.

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.

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

As I understand it, the stern car-loading doors on Princess Victoria were battered in by heavy seas as she attempted to leave Loch Ryan going astern; that is, the doors failed rather than the ship being pooped by a sea overtopping them.  She remained afloat for some hours after this event despite broaching and whatever FSE she suffered, suggesting that her scuppers mostly coped, but that the length of time she was at sea in those conditions and the resultant accumulation of water aboard her ultimately overwhelmed her.  A feature of the Estonia sinking was her captain’s insistence on maintaining full speed in adverse conditions. 
 

 

Perhaps part of their training should involve an obstacle race against the clock in which they have to carry a shallow tray of water without spilling any…

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.

54 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

At Skipton, Keighley, Shipley, Wilmslow and others the booking office staff leave the office to dispatch LNER and Avanti services, then return to selling tickets. On shorter trains the conductors self-dispatch. 

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.

On 29/06/2023 at 22:15, Matt said:

Ok I’ve had a fiddle with my Bach 37/4…. The AS plough does fit really nicely with a coupling in the NEM pocket - gripping the shaft gently although a dab of glue will keep it there. Position looks about right to me.

 

For the non coupled end I tried Bachs own plough and it sticks out slightly too far (not as bad as 47). However removal of NEM pocket from bogie and inserting the tail of the plough directly into the mounting space on bogie puts plough right distance from buffer beam I’d say.  Some packing needed to get height right but does lock into bogie quite nicely.

 

That’s the good news… I am finding however that the plough even set back this far interferes with buffer beam detail such that loco can’t operate. Seems to be down to rigid plastic used by Bach for pipes compared to others more flexible plastic. Still pondering solution on this one…

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.

4 hours ago, Matt said:

Yes unfortunately this is a feature of the new model - ploughs also can’t be mounted with couplings.

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.

25 minutes ago, Matt said:

There were a few retailers selling 37201 at Perth show today suggesting they might have arrived earlier than expected.

M

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.

37 minutes ago, WessexEclectic said:

Queue mental pictures of blokes standing at Dock Head crossing off IMO numbers....

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.

6 hours ago, phil gollin said:

.

 

Any update on the R-T-R  GNoSR V/F Class 4-4-0 / SE&CR G Class 4-4-0 wheels issue ?

 

Maybe an estimated date for delivery ?

 

.

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

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Budgets are problematic at the best of times, but in the context of an economic crisis and an emergency need to re-capitalize the Army after giving away most of it's operable artillery, a huge chunk of it's ammunition stocks and significant amounts of other material such as anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles (not to mention giving away a lot of the RAF Storm Shadow cruise missiles) it's hard to see a happy outcome for the RN. We can't afford an increase in the defence budget to anything like the level we need to replace the Army armoured vehicle and artillery fleets and replenish weapons stocks as well as fund the Typhoon jet fighter, new cruise missiles etc as well as expensive warships.

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.

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

Type 83 news:

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britains-new-warship-a-type-83-destroyer-concept-surfaces/

 

What could possibly go wrong.

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.

3 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

other than it gives the buyer a warm feeling.

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

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

Hasn't the fairly recent re-signalling, mentioned in a previous post, removed one or both of these?

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.

4 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

How many stations still have more than one box, say within sight on the platforms?  Off the top I can only think of Stockport and Shrewsbury.  

Stirling again.

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

39 minutes ago, MarshLane said:

Some friends and I were talking the other day about semaphores on the main line, and we were trying to work out which was the last 'BIG' station (in our vocabulary) in England that was semaphore signalled - we specified BIG as a multi-platform (ie more than one in each direction) non-terminus station being on main line, serving several routes, one of which (has or does) provided Intercity services.

 

Obviously Shrewsbury remains semaphore today, but in terms of stations that have already been re signalled, we failed to really come up with an answer.  York was an early convert to power signalling, Doncaster went in the late 1970s with the power box opening, we concluded most WCML locations would have been re signalled with electrification in the 1960s/1970s, which brought us down to the possibility of Chester, somewhere on the Midland Main Line, or maybe the Western in Devon/Somerset?  

 

Does anyone have any thoughts?

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.

2 hours ago, John M Upton said:

 

How many Class 27's carried an Eastfield dog?  I am pretty sure this is the first one I have seen?

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.

4 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Thanks for posting that Keith. It really takes me back. We had several family holidays in the Western Highlands ( I think my father liked rain and midges!) and I can remember going to Skye on  the Glenelg ferry as well as another crossing and the turntable car decks on the Glenelg ferry seemed very Heath Robinsonish. This would have been in the late 1950s early 1960s so none of the ferries we used would have been the Glenachulish but I didn't even know that these small ferry boats even had names. I 'm sure we also used the Ballaculish ferry but can't remember what sort of ferry was in use on the other short crossing to Skye.

It all brings back memories of single track A Roads with passing places and staying in Highland B&Bs. We used the Motorail service at least once to get up there but also the "Starlight Special" (a cut price overnight train with day carriages only) with a hire car from I think Edinburgh.

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

4 hours ago, AncientMariner said:

 

An historical point.  I can’t guarantee how much truth there is in this though!  Also I expect some old hands may already know this.

 

Starboard is a corruption of steerboard,.  This goes back quite a few centuries, and was traditionally the side on which the vessel’s steering board was located.  To prevent damage to the steering board, it was the convention to put the vessel alongside on the other side for cargo operations, and became known as the lade board side. Over the years this term became corrupted to larboard.

 

Anyone involved in marine operations will quickly realise that the terms starboard and larboard could easily become confused if and when shouted over a howling gale.  Hence larboard was replaced by port, because that was the side that was traditionally alongside when berthed.

 

Bearing that in mind, in subsequent years, power driven ships were fitted with right-handed propellors, (i.e. – turning clockwise when looking forward from aft), because, when running in reverse, the vessel would tend to swing to starboard, which was usually a useful feature when berthing without tugs.  Ships with controllable pitch propellors, which turn continually during berthing operations are normally left-handed, to maintain the same effect when the blade pitch is reversed.

 

Car carriers, which are invariably designed to work starboard side alongside, have indeed bucked this trend.  However, tugs and bow thrusters - not commonplace in pre-medieval times - are used to overcome the propellor’s effect when docking.

 

John H.

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.