Design a better wagon for British Tanks

Sam R. · Mar 13, 2013

I've always wanted to ask train boffins: is W6 the standard loading gauge, or is is a standard "squeeze" loading gauge, or is it a "squeeze" loading gauge on a few minor lines, or is it a "squeeze" loading gauge on "that one tunnel they let Kev build."?

What proportion of line is built to W6? What proportion of load is carried on W6 lines? etc.

And is there a boffin grade explanation of the history of W6 as a specification out there?

yours,
Sam R.

Simon · Mar 13, 2013

b0ned0me said:
Oh yes, certainly. Providing you are starting from somewhere near a big railway and going somewhere similar, (i.e. ends of the journey are not down some little branch line) then with some amount of work and creative routing you can usually manage even a huge load. Did you find that picture here? But it's a bit like issuing a 20-kg rifle - just because you sometimes can carry it does not mean you always want to.

Very true. As for the picture it could be, I found it via Google Images and didn't go to the page itself so I couldn't say for sure.

My impression is that it was a typical British compromise - in private hands but legislation had forcibly consolidated 120-odd companies into 4 big ones plus a few tiddlers. Also there were apparently various govt subsidies, soft loans and tax breaks available to fund 'modernization'.

Interesting. So that means if they combine gentle pressure via the subsidies, soft loans and tax breaks you mention plus as a trade-off for getting rid of the common carrier rules they could possibly get the companies to enlarge the loading gauge on certain selected lines as their side of the deal. Not all of them of course, say the ones going to and from the main industrial areas, to certain ports plus a couple of the main lines so that they can go to at least the different regions even if then having to switch to the roads for the final parts of the journey. Spread it over 5-10 years and it shouldn't be too onerous for them, hell over time it's probably a benefit for them.

yulzari said:
I was proposing that the tank/loading gauge matter could have the Gordian knot cut by abandoning rail and using the Napier Culverin as the standard engine for both a tank transporter and a 1944 quality tank.

In an ideal world they would of gone for the Rolls-Royce Meteorite, a development of the Meteor, either as a straight replacement or as part of an earlier Thornycroft Antar. As so often appears be the case for Britain during WW2 having more production capacity for Rolls-Royce Merlin engines seems to be the answer for practically everything at times.

MattII said:
Britain isn't a big oil producer, but is a big coal producer, so reworking the tank transport network to run on oil instead of coal will only increase the volume of imports required.

This could depend on when they make the decision to switch, if they do it pre-war then the unpreparedness for the u-boat campaign could actually be a bonus funnily enough. If they're not expecting the convoys to be sunk in such great numbers before the war then an increase in imports might be considered an acceptable trade-off for increased utility. Plus IIRC didn't the British get the majority of their oil during the war from Venezuela and to a lesser extent the Middle East?

yulzari · Mar 13, 2013

Simon said:
In an ideal world they would of gone for the Rolls-Royce Meteorite, a development of the Meteor, either as a straight replacement or as part of an earlier Thornycroft Antar. As so often appears be the case for Britain during WW2 having more production capacity for Rolls-Royce Merlin engines seems to be the answer for practically everything at times.

Except that the Rover Meteorite was not available until the end of the war and the Napier Culverin was pre war.

Actually oil was not in critical short supply during the war.

Proper large tank transporters would have given strategic mobility and been a force multiplier in operations abroad. You can't take your railway with you. The fuel implications of a few (in commercial terms) tank transporters are trivial.

However, as I said, I had an old thread on this so revival of that might be the best place to look further into the road tank transporter issue.

Lord Brisbane · Mar 13, 2013

However, since the French/german/Italian/swiss/belgian/dutch/danish/etc/etc/ all use the same standardised loading gauge since 1912 and are on the same track gauge as the UK then that would be perfectly feasible - in any other country but the UK.

There were plenty of metre gauge lines in Europe. Almost the entire Swiss network is metre gauge, as was/is the Spanish, Portugese, Norway and Greek systems...

MattII · Mar 14, 2013

Bull, do even a minute's research before you post, Spain never really touched Metre Gauge until recently, they went for Iberian Gauge straight from the off. Likewise Finland didn't start off with Metre Gauge, but with Broad Gauge (in their case, Russian Gauge). The Portuguese did lay a few Metre Gauge lines, but soon switched to Iberian Gauge due to realising that a railway network that stopped at the border would not be hugely useful.

Ian Hathaway · Mar 14, 2013

Sam R. said:
I've always wanted to ask train boffins: is W6 the standard loading gauge, or is is a standard "squeeze" loading gauge, or is it a "squeeze" loading gauge on a few minor lines, or is it a "squeeze" loading gauge on "that one tunnel they let Kev build."?

What proportion of line is built to W6? What proportion of load is carried on W6 lines? etc.

And is there a boffin grade explanation of the history of W6 as a specification out there?

yours,
Sam R.

I will try to get back to you on this when I get a bit of spare time

b0ned0me · Mar 14, 2013

Lord Brisbane said:
There were plenty of metre gauge lines in Europe. Almost the entire Swiss network is metre gauge, as was/is the Spanish, Portugese, Norway and Greek systems...

Plenty of narrow-gauge of various kinds in the UK too, but I'm not sure it's really germane to the discussion. The primary freight lines were some variant of standard rail gauge and there was only one internationally standardised loading gauge. Theoretically I suppose you could even build a metre track line to berne loading gauge

I'm not sure what the situation was at the time (most likely a higher proportion of narrow gauges) but today the Swiss network is apparently about 27% narrow, including all the crazy cog-assisted mountain railways and so on. That makes sense since they would need them, but the main routes to France/Germany/Italy have always been standard gauge as far as I know. Certainly there were trains running direct from Italy to Germany and France.

Spain is going to be a different rail gauge anyhow, since they will be either wider or narrower than standard - no point worrying about them. Without wishing to be rude to Norway, Greece or Portugal, I doubt they were exactly top of mind for anyone planning transport links for western Europe.

Simon · Mar 14, 2013

yulzari said:
Except that the Rover Meteorite was not available until the end of the war and the Napier Culverin was pre-war.

Ah sorry was a bit abrupt, meant to explain my thinking a bit more. Basically it was that if you greatly increase the supply of Merlin aeroplane engines then that frees them up to look at possibly converting it to the Meteor if there aren't any shortages of it, and from there if you've already got a really good tank engine then maybe the Meteorite flows on from there. The Culverin does however have potential as you say.

b0ned0me · Mar 14, 2013

yulzari said:
Except that the Rover Meteorite was not available until the end of the war and the Napier Culverin was pre war.

There does seem to have been a general dearth of high-powered diesel engines pre-war unless you were looking to power a ship, locomotive or generator. Tank engines are tough to find.
I'm not aware of anyone having made a success of a junkers-type diesel in a demanding vehicle application apart from maybe Commer after ww2.

Perkins started working on high-speed diesels in the mid-late thirties, but I think their range topped out at about 85 hp. http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/File:Im19380701CM-Perk.jpg
Meadows similarly I think topped out at about 100hp or so

Paxman were the other british firm working in this area and had a 58.7L 600hp V12 (the 12TP) which made it into the TOG tank. It was mainly used for landing craft and subs - a bit big for tanks.

Even if you look at the US, you tend to find that diesels are either sized for locos and subs (Winton/Cleveland Diesel, Fairbanks-Morse) or trucks (Buda, Cummins, Detroit Diesel).

Getting a decent transporter engine shouldn't have been too hard though - enough choices for a beefed-up Pioneer or similar. Interestingly Amstrong had a licence from Saurer (swiss) for trucks with diesel motors including quite heavy ones for the time.
http://www.trucksplanet.com/catalog/model.php?id=1565

Ian Hathaway · Mar 14, 2013

b0ned0me said:
There does seem to have been a general dearth of high-powered diesel engines pre-war unless you were looking to power a ship, locomotive or generator. Tank engines are tough to find.
I'm not aware of anyone having made a success of a junkers-type diesel in a demanding vehicle application apart from maybe Commer after ww2.

Perkins started working on high-speed diesels in the mid-late thirties, but I think their range topped out at about 85 hp. http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/File:Im19380701CM-Perk.jpg
Meadows similarly I think topped out at about 100hp or so

Paxman were the other british firm working in this area and had a 58.7L 600hp V12 (the 12TP) which made it into the TOG tank. It was mainly used for landing craft and subs - a bit big for tanks.

Even if you look at the US, you tend to find that diesels are either sized for locos and subs (Winton/Cleveland Diesel, Fairbanks-Morse) or trucks (Buda, Cummins, Detroit Diesel).

Getting a decent transporter engine shouldn't have been too hard though - enough choices for a beefed-up Pioneer or similar. Interestingly Amstrong had a licence from Saurer (swiss) for trucks with diesel motors including quite heavy ones for the time.
http://www.trucksplanet.com/catalog/model.php?id=1565

You could try this http://www.oldengine.org/members/die...ord/aviat5.htm Rolls-Royce Condor Diesel Aero Engine as I have in my silly Brit tank design.

MattII · Mar 14, 2013

I see three options here:
1. Stick multiple engines in like the Australians did with the Sentinel.
2. Take a small diesel and add more cylinders.
3. Design a whole new engine.

Dathi THorfinnsson · Mar 15, 2013

MattII said:
I see three options here:
1. Stick multiple engines in like the Australians did with the Sentinel.
e.

3 separate engines feeding a single gear box? Ouch.

Andras · Mar 15, 2013

The US was relatively successful with two GM truck diesels powering some fighting vehicles.

MattII · Mar 15, 2013

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
3 separate engines feeding a single gear box? Ouch.

Provides a measure of reliability though, even if one engine konks out the other two can probably get it home, plus you don't need as much heavy-lifting equipment to maintain it, and the logistics are simpler since you're probably using the same engines in your lighter vehicles.

Dathi THorfinnsson · Mar 16, 2013

MattII said:
Provides a measure of reliability though, even if one engine konks out the other two can probably get it home, plus you don't need as much heavy-lifting equipment to maintain it, and the logistics are simpler since you're probably using the same engines in your lighter vehicles.

Im no gearhead, but wouldnt that arrangement put a LOT of stress on connecting bits, keeping them exactly in sync when theyll all be at slightly different power levels?

MattII · Mar 17, 2013

Possibly, although given the general reliability of Nuffield's vehicles, it would probably go almost unnoticed.

Sior · Mar 17, 2013

MattII said:
Possibly, although given the general reliability of Nuffield's vehicles, it would probably go almost unnoticed.

Or the fact that the Liberty POC lost 17% of the engine power through the chain drive.

b0ned0me · Mar 17, 2013

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
3 separate engines feeding a single gear box? Ouch.

Oh, I dunno. Could be worse. Chrysler managed it with FIVE!

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_112613/article.html

The us seemed to manage OK with these, although not ideal. However they did have a lot of infrastructure backing them up.

marathag · Mar 17, 2013

b0ned0me said:
However, since the French/german/Italian/swiss/belgian/dutch/danish/etc/etc/ all use the same standardised loading gauge since 1912 and are on the same track gauge as the UK then that would be perfectly feasible - in any other country but the UK.

USA as well-- items like this,

aren't common, but depressed center cars in use since the 1890s

Would designing UK tanks to do this

and bolt the suspension back on when offloaded from the flatbed, T28 style, be a work-around?

b0ned0me · Mar 18, 2013

marathag said:
and bolt the suspension back on when offloaded from the flatbed, T28 style, be a work-around?

I have to confess I had to look that up to check you weren't pulling our legs.

I really don't think that would be practical. Not worth the complexity and expense - I am in fact amazed the Germans didn't implement something like this on the TigerII, it seems right up their street.

The only sensible solution to the tank transport problem is basically what happened OTL - for the powers that be to grow a pair and just deal with the inconvenience of moving outsize loads. If Sherman/Grant/Churchill/Cromwell/Comet could all be moved round the UK in ww2, there is no reason why a super-valentine or something could not have been moved around in the late thirties. It would have been expensive and awkward, but at then end of the day that's what tanks are all about.
Some smart well-planned upgrade work could have reduced the difficulty (probably quite a bit) but at the end of the day hauling 30-40 tons of tank round is going to be a PITA no matter what. Which is part of the reason everyone deluded themselves into thinking 25 tons was as much as you'd ever need.