Armoured vehicles and loading gauge...

I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be carried
by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit within
the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British tanks
always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?

(kim)

"kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>carried by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit
>within the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have
>British tanks always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?
>
It started in 1945 with the Centurion, this being the first British tank
whose design was not constrained to be carried on British Railways.

The design limitation had been a major factor in undergunned British tanks
as it limited the turret ring size, which had a knock on effect to the
calibre of gun fittable.

In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be carried
>by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit within
>the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British tanks
>always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?

Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway
loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production
1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into the
1960s for specialist derviatives). The Comet (in production 1944) could,
IIRC, be carried by rail if the track assemblies were dismantled.
Centurions and more recent types had to be moved on road transporters.

Tracked scouting vehicles (Scimitar and derivatives) and infantry fighting
vehicles (AFV 432 family and Warriors) will fit on rail transporters - but
they're not tanks.

--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)

"estarriol" <estarriol@estarriol.jeansNTshirt.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f8v947$bc0$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>>I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>carried by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to
>>fit within the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have
>>British tanks always been too wide or is it a relatively modern
>>phenomenon?
>>
> It started in 1945 with the Centurion, this being the first British tank
> whose design was not constrained to be carried on British Railways.
>
> The design limitation had been a major factor in undergunned British tanks
> as it limited the turret ring size, which had a knock on effect to the
> calibre of gun fittable.

Thanks. The reason I asked here and not in an armoured group is that I've
been reading a lot of retro reviews of Airfix' armoured vehicle kits. Airfix
deliberately chose a scale of 1/76th in order to be "compatible" with 00/H0
scale railway models but it seems the vast majority of tanks are too wide to
fit on a British railway wagon in any case. Nor will a 1/76th scale tank fit
on a 1/87th scale H0 wagon for obvious reasons. It seems as if Airfix
couldn't have picked a worse scale.

(kim)

"Andrew Robert Breen" <azb@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1186146845.53771@leri.aber.ac.uk...
> In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
> kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>carried
>>by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit within
>>the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British
>>tanks
>>always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?
>
> Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway
> loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production
> 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into the
> 1960s for specialist derviatives). The Comet (in production 1944) could,
> IIRC, be carried by rail if the track assemblies were dismantled.
> Centurions and more recent types had to be moved on road transporters.
>
> Tracked scouting vehicles (Scimitar and derivatives) and infantry fighting
> vehicles (AFV 432 family and Warriors) will fit on rail transporters - but
> they're not tanks.

The Scimitar family is so narrow they couldn't even fit a diesel engine
(originally). It was designed to fit between the trees on Malay rubber
plantations but arrived too late to make any difference to that conflict.
The factory where it was made is now a retail park where I do most of my
weekly shopping.

(kim).

"estarriol" <estarriol@estarriol.jeansNTshirt.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f8v947$bc0$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>>I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>carried by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to
>>fit within the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have
>>British tanks always been too wide or is it a relatively modern
>>phenomenon?
>>
> It started in 1945 with the Centurion, this being the first British tank
> whose design was not constrained to be carried on British Railways.
>
> The design limitation had been a major factor in undergunned British tanks
> as it limited the turret ring size, which had a knock on effect to the
> calibre of gun fittable.
I bet Big Willey was to big too

"kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:_9Cdnc9S-vA_si7bnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Andrew Robert Breen" <azb@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:1186146845.53771@leri.aber.ac.uk...
>> In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
>> kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>>I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>>carried
>>>by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit
>>>within
>>>the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British
>>>tanks
>>>always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?
>>
>> Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway
>> loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production
>> 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into
>> the
>> 1960s for specialist derviatives). The Comet (in production 1944) could,
>> IIRC, be carried by rail if the track assemblies were dismantled.
>> Centurions and more recent types had to be moved on road transporters.
>>
>> Tracked scouting vehicles (Scimitar and derivatives) and infantry
>> fighting
>> vehicles (AFV 432 family and Warriors) will fit on rail transporters -
>> but
>> they're not tanks.
>
> The Scimitar family is so narrow they couldn't even fit a diesel engine
> (originally). It was designed to fit between the trees on Malay rubber
> plantations but arrived too late to make any difference to that conflict.
> The factory where it was made is now a retail park where I do most of my
> weekly shopping.
>
> (kim).
It Missed it by a long chalk then.
We Used Saladin's and Saracen still when I Left in 72

"Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote in message
news:Kqedncf1Yel52C7bnZ2dnUVZ8tmhnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:_9Cdnc9S-vA_si7bnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "Andrew Robert Breen" <azb@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1186146845.53771@leri.aber.ac.uk...
>>> In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
>>> kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>>>carried
>>>>by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit
>>>>within
>>>>the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British
>>>>tanks
>>>>always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?
>>>
>>> Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway
>>> loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production
>>> 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into
>>> the
>>> 1960s for specialist derviatives). The Comet (in production 1944) could,
>>> IIRC, be carried by rail if the track assemblies were dismantled.
>>> Centurions and more recent types had to be moved on road transporters.
>>>
>>> Tracked scouting vehicles (Scimitar and derivatives) and infantry
>>> fighting
>>> vehicles (AFV 432 family and Warriors) will fit on rail transporters -
>>> but
>>> they're not tanks.
>>
>> The Scimitar family is so narrow they couldn't even fit a diesel engine
>> (originally). It was designed to fit between the trees on Malay rubber
>> plantations but arrived too late to make any difference to that conflict.
>> The factory where it was made is now a retail park where I do most of my
>> weekly shopping.
>>
>> (kim).
> It Missed it by a long chalk then.
> We Used Saladin's and Saracen still when I Left in 72

My dad was there in '53, hence the Malay name. A year later I would have
been a Gustav or a Hermann!

(kim)

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:29:52 +0100, "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:

>My dad was there in '53, hence the Malay name. A year later I would have
>been a Gustav or a Hermann!

Kim is an old Celtic name, the shortened form of Kimball.

>(kim)
>

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:fdi6b3tc2lhrjor0fv6grbh09aqn3rhoqf@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:29:52 +0100, "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>My dad was there in '53, hence the Malay name. A year later I would have
>>been a Gustav or a Hermann!
>
> Kim is an old Celtic name, the shortened form of Kimball.

It may well be but I was named after the son of a Malay housekeeper.

(kim)

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:46:31 +0100, "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:fdi6b3tc2lhrjor0fv6grbh09aqn3rhoqf@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:29:52 +0100, "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>My dad was there in '53, hence the Malay name. A year later I would have
>>>been a Gustav or a Hermann!
>>
>> Kim is an old Celtic name, the shortened form of Kimball.
>
>It may well be but I was named after the son of a Malay housekeeper.

OK.

>(kim)
>

"kim" wrote

> Thanks. The reason I asked here and not in an armoured group is that I've
> been reading a lot of retro reviews of Airfix' armoured vehicle kits.
Airfix
> deliberately chose a scale of 1/76th in order to be "compatible" with
00/H0
> scale railway models but it seems the vast majority of tanks are too wide
to
> fit on a British railway wagon in any case. Nor will a 1/76th scale tank
fit
> on a 1/87th scale H0 wagon for obvious reasons. It seems as if Airfix
> couldn't have picked a worse scale.

Have Airfix models changed? I thought their military vehicles scale was
1/72 which is near enough for 00 (5%) oversize) and matched with a number of
other items they made. Military and vehicle modelling has a range of scales
that historically suited them but don't quite match railway scales. Though
some aren't too far off 1/48 (some cars) is near 1/43.5 (O) and 1/35 is near
and 1/32 spot on for Gauge 1, and the aircraft in 1/144 suit N.

Going back to the original question about tanks on the rails, what was
carried down the old Wymondham-Dereham (now Mid Norfolk Railway) line all
those years? It was kept open after passenger closure in 1972 for military
materiel taken to Dereham or northwards for storage until the preservation
group took it over in the 90s. Not too much of a loading gauge problem there
as it's single track now and decent bridge widths don't limit anything, and
East Anglian lines generally tend not to have too many gauge problems as
there are few tunnels (Newmarket, Ipswich and not much else). If you look at
Dereham you can see MoD sleepering - concrete with slots in the middle and
rail spikes instead of chairs.

Continental railways have a generous enough loading gauge to permit
regular military movements. I've seen Soviet T-72 tanks being unloaded at a
rail yard in north eastern Czechoslovakia and driven through the streets to
the army base on the hill. Scary noise when they come past on cobbles, I
tell you.

Tony Clarke

"kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:B7-dnXihBKDj1C7bnZ2dnUVZ8saonZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote in message
> news:Kqedncf1Yel52C7bnZ2dnUVZ8tmhnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:_9Cdnc9S-vA_si7bnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "Andrew Robert Breen" <azb@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:1186146845.53771@leri.aber.ac.uk...
>>>> In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
>>>> kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>>>>carried
>>>>>by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit
>>>>>within
>>>>>the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British
>>>>>tanks
>>>>>always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?
>>>>
>>>> Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway
>>>> loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production
>>>> 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into
>>>> the
>>>> 1960s for specialist derviatives). The Comet (in production 1944)
>>>> could,
>>>> IIRC, be carried by rail if the track assemblies were dismantled.
>>>> Centurions and more recent types had to be moved on road transporters.
>>>>
>>>> Tracked scouting vehicles (Scimitar and derivatives) and infantry
>>>> fighting
>>>> vehicles (AFV 432 family and Warriors) will fit on rail transporters -
>>>> but
>>>> they're not tanks.
>>>
>>> The Scimitar family is so narrow they couldn't even fit a diesel engine
>>> (originally). It was designed to fit between the trees on Malay rubber
>>> plantations but arrived too late to make any difference to that
>>> conflict. The factory where it was made is now a retail park where I do
>>> most of my weekly shopping.
>>>
>>> (kim).
>> It Missed it by a long chalk then.
>> We Used Saladin's and Saracen still when I Left in 72
>
> My dad was there in '53, hence the Malay name. A year later I would have
> been a Gustav or a Hermann!
>
> (kim)
If You mean They where around then your on the wrong name. Scimitar is
based on the Scorpion that did not appear until 72. So you where thinking of
the 6 wheel Saladin with the Rolls Royce Engines. Diesel engines where for
boats and the men in dark blue The ones in light blue used Kerosene in
there aircraft

"Tony Clarke" <ajc67@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f8vn4a$av0$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> "kim" wrote
>
>> Thanks. The reason I asked here and not in an armoured group is that I've
>> been reading a lot of retro reviews of Airfix' armoured vehicle kits.
> Airfix
>> deliberately chose a scale of 1/76th in order to be "compatible" with
> 00/H0
>> scale railway models but it seems the vast majority of tanks are too wide
> to
>> fit on a British railway wagon in any case. Nor will a 1/76th scale tank
> fit
>> on a 1/87th scale H0 wagon for obvious reasons. It seems as if Airfix
>> couldn't have picked a worse scale.
>
> Have Airfix models changed? I thought their military vehicles scale was
> 1/72 which is near enough for 00 (5%) oversize) and matched with a number
> of
> other items they made. Military and vehicle modelling has a range of
> scales
> that historically suited them but don't quite match railway scales. Though
> some aren't too far off 1/48 (some cars) is near 1/43.5 (O) and 1/35 is
> near
> and 1/32 spot on for Gauge 1, and the aircraft in 1/144 suit N.
>
> Going back to the original question about tanks on the rails, what was
> carried down the old Wymondham-Dereham (now Mid Norfolk Railway) line all
> those years? It was kept open after passenger closure in 1972 for military
> materiel taken to Dereham or northwards for storage until the preservation
> group took it over in the 90s. Not too much of a loading gauge problem
> there
> as it's single track now and decent bridge widths don't limit anything,
> and
> East Anglian lines generally tend not to have too many gauge problems as
> there are few tunnels (Newmarket, Ipswich and not much else). If you look
> at
> Dereham you can see MoD sleepering - concrete with slots in the middle and
> rail spikes instead of chairs.
>
> Continental railways have a generous enough loading gauge to permit
> regular military movements. I've seen Soviet T-72 tanks being unloaded at
> a
> rail yard in north eastern Czechoslovakia and driven through the streets
> to
> the army base on the hill. Scary noise when they come past on cobbles, I
> tell you.
>
> Tony Clark
In my days 62 to 72. In Germany We some times used rail and sometimes Road
depending on where we where going with our Cents and Even the conquers up to
chieftains

"Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote in message
news:4KWdnf1tM8hk_i7bRVnyugA@pipex.net...
>
> "Tony Clarke" <ajc67@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:f8vn4a$av0$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>>
>> "kim" wrote
>>
>>> Thanks. The reason I asked here and not in an armoured group is that
>>> I've
>>> been reading a lot of retro reviews of Airfix' armoured vehicle kits.
>> Airfix
>>> deliberately chose a scale of 1/76th in order to be "compatible" with
>> 00/H0
>>> scale railway models but it seems the vast majority of tanks are too
>>> wide
>> to
>>> fit on a British railway wagon in any case. Nor will a 1/76th scale tank
>> fit
>>> on a 1/87th scale H0 wagon for obvious reasons. It seems as if Airfix
>>> couldn't have picked a worse scale.
>>
>> Have Airfix models changed? I thought their military vehicles scale
>> was
>> 1/72 which is near enough for 00 (5%) oversize) and matched with a number
>> of
>> other items they made. Military and vehicle modelling has a range of
>> scales
>> that historically suited them but don't quite match railway scales.
>> Though
>> some aren't too far off 1/48 (some cars) is near 1/43.5 (O) and 1/35 is
>> near
>> and 1/32 spot on for Gauge 1, and the aircraft in 1/144 suit N.
>>
>> Going back to the original question about tanks on the rails, what was
>> carried down the old Wymondham-Dereham (now Mid Norfolk Railway) line all
>> those years? It was kept open after passenger closure in 1972 for
>> military
>> materiel taken to Dereham or northwards for storage until the
>> preservation
>> group took it over in the 90s. Not too much of a loading gauge problem
>> there
>> as it's single track now and decent bridge widths don't limit anything,
>> and
>> East Anglian lines generally tend not to have too many gauge problems as
>> there are few tunnels (Newmarket, Ipswich and not much else). If you look
>> at
>> Dereham you can see MoD sleepering - concrete with slots in the middle
>> and
>> rail spikes instead of chairs.
>>
>> Continental railways have a generous enough loading gauge to permit
>> regular military movements. I've seen Soviet T-72 tanks being unloaded at
>> a
>> rail yard in north eastern Czechoslovakia and driven through the streets
>> to
>> the army base on the hill. Scary noise when they come past on cobbles, I
>> tell you.
>>
>> Tony Clark
> In my days 62 to 72. In Germany We some times used rail and sometimes Road
> depending on where we where going with our Cents and Even the conquers up
> to chieftains
>
The traffic for Dereham, which has sometimes run since preservation, is of
armoured personnel carriers and similar- the largest of these, the Warrior,
is carried on modified Warwells and is subject to strict loading gauge
restrictions. On one occasion, a train from Ludgershall to the ranges north
of Catterick was sent via the platform road, rather than the loop, at
Tyseley, and removed a large chunk of the recently restored canopy
valancing.
The BAOR tanks were carried on Warflats, which had been extended sideways to
accomodate the post-Centurion MBTs- some 81 of these were repatriated to
Eurotunnel's Cheriton terminal a few years ago, there being transferred to
low-loaders for the onward journey.
Brian

"Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote in message
news:4KWdnf1tM8hk_i7bRVnyugA@pipex.net...
>
> "Tony Clarke" <ajc67@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:f8vn4a$av0$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>>
>> "kim" wrote
>>
>>> Thanks. The reason I asked here and not in an armoured group is that
>>> I've
>>> been reading a lot of retro reviews of Airfix' armoured vehicle kits.
>> Airfix
>>> deliberately chose a scale of 1/76th in order to be "compatible" with
>> 00/H0
>>> scale railway models but it seems the vast majority of tanks are too
>>> wide
>> to
>>> fit on a British railway wagon in any case. Nor will a 1/76th scale tank
>> fit
>>> on a 1/87th scale H0 wagon for obvious reasons. It seems as if Airfix
>>> couldn't have picked a worse scale.
>>
>> Have Airfix models changed? I thought their military vehicles scale
>> was
>> 1/72 which is near enough for 00 (5%) oversize) and matched with a number
>> of
>> other items they made. Military and vehicle modelling has a range of
>> scales
>> that historically suited them but don't quite match railway scales.
>> Though
>> some aren't too far off 1/48 (some cars) is near 1/43.5 (O) and 1/35 is
>> near
>> and 1/32 spot on for Gauge 1, and the aircraft in 1/144 suit N.
>>
>> Going back to the original question about tanks on the rails, what was
>> carried down the old Wymondham-Dereham (now Mid Norfolk Railway) line all
>> those years? It was kept open after passenger closure in 1972 for
>> military
>> materiel taken to Dereham or northwards for storage until the
>> preservation
>> group took it over in the 90s. Not too much of a loading gauge problem
>> there
>> as it's single track now and decent bridge widths don't limit anything,
>> and
>> East Anglian lines generally tend not to have too many gauge problems as
>> there are few tunnels (Newmarket, Ipswich and not much else). If you look
>> at
>> Dereham you can see MoD sleepering - concrete with slots in the middle
>> and
>> rail spikes instead of chairs.
>>
>> Continental railways have a generous enough loading gauge to permit
>> regular military movements. I've seen Soviet T-72 tanks being unloaded at
>> a
>> rail yard in north eastern Czechoslovakia and driven through the streets
>> to
>> the army base on the hill. Scary noise when they come past on cobbles, I
>> tell you.
>>
>> Tony Clark
> In my days 62 to 72. In Germany We some times used rail and sometimes Road
> depending on where we where going with our Cents and Even the conquers up
> to chieftains
Yes which is why I replied that it was the British Loading gauge that was
the problem, they were carrieable on the continental gauge.

"Tony Clarke" <ajc67@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f8vn4a$av0$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> "kim" wrote
>
>> Thanks. The reason I asked here and not in an armoured group is that I've
>> been reading a lot of retro reviews of Airfix' armoured vehicle kits.
> Airfix
>> deliberately chose a scale of 1/76th in order to be "compatible" with
> 00/H0
>> scale railway models but it seems the vast majority of tanks are too wide
> to
>> fit on a British railway wagon in any case. Nor will a 1/76th scale tank
> fit
>> on a 1/87th scale H0 wagon for obvious reasons. It seems as if Airfix
>> couldn't have picked a worse scale.
>
> Have Airfix models changed? I thought their military vehicles scale was
> 1/72 which is near enough for 00 (5%) oversize) and matched with a number
> of
> other items they made.

Airfix military vehicles and figures have always been 1/76th except for a
couple of items made by Heller and sold in Airfix boxes. The labelling was
at one time changed from "00/H0" to 1/72nd but has since been changed back
to avoid misleading customers.

(kim)

"Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote in message
news:q7ydnSw129h2_S7bnZ2dnUVZ8sqjnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:B7-dnXihBKDj1C7bnZ2dnUVZ8saonZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote in message
>> news:Kqedncf1Yel52C7bnZ2dnUVZ8tmhnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>
>>> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:_9Cdnc9S-vA_si7bnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "Andrew Robert Breen" <azb@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:1186146845.53771@leri.aber.ac.uk...
>>>>> In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
>>>>> kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>>>>>carried
>>>>>>by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit
>>>>>>within
>>>>>>the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British
>>>>>>tanks
>>>>>>always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?
>>>>>
>>>>> Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway
>>>>> loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in
>>>>> production
>>>>> 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into
>>>>> the
>>>>> 1960s for specialist derviatives). The Comet (in production 1944)
>>>>> could,
>>>>> IIRC, be carried by rail if the track assemblies were dismantled.
>>>>> Centurions and more recent types had to be moved on road transporters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tracked scouting vehicles (Scimitar and derivatives) and infantry
>>>>> fighting
>>>>> vehicles (AFV 432 family and Warriors) will fit on rail transporters -
>>>>> but
>>>>> they're not tanks.
>>>>
>>>> The Scimitar family is so narrow they couldn't even fit a diesel engine
>>>> (originally). It was designed to fit between the trees on Malay rubber
>>>> plantations but arrived too late to make any difference to that
>>>> conflict. The factory where it was made is now a retail park where I do
>>>> most of my weekly shopping.
>>>>
>>>> (kim).
>>> It Missed it by a long chalk then.
>>> We Used Saladin's and Saracen still when I Left in 72
>>
>> My dad was there in '53, hence the Malay name. A year later I would have
>> been a Gustav or a Hermann!
>>
>> (kim)
> If You mean They where around then your on the wrong name.

No, I meant my name was "kim"because my dad was stationed in Malaya in 1953

)

The following year when I was actually born he was stationed in Germany.

(kim)

"Andrew Robert Breen" <azb@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1186172139.579012@leri.aber.ac.uk...
> In article <_oqdna_Ao4Fq2S7bnZ2dnUVZ8sCsnZ2d@pipex.net>,
> Trev <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote:
>>
>>"estarriol" <estarriol@estarriol.jeansNTshirt.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:f8v947$bc0$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>>>>I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>>>carried by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to
>>>>fit within the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have
>>>>British tanks always been too wide or is it a relatively modern
>>>>phenomenon?
>>>>
>>> It started in 1945 with the Centurion, this being the first British tank
>>> whose design was not constrained to be carried on British Railways.
>>>
>>> The design limitation had been a major factor in undergunned British
>>> tanks
>>> as it limited the turret ring size, which had a knock on effect to the
>>> calibre of gun fittable.
>> I bet Big Willey was to big too
>
> I take it you mean "Big Willie", AKA "Mother" or "H.M. Landship 1"..
>
> It fitted. Needed the gun sponsons unbolting and swinging into the hull,
> but with that done, it fitted - as did all the "Mk." series heavies,
> right down to the Mk.VIII and MK.XI.
>
> Whippets, of course, fitted without modification.

This one didn't:-

http://www.modelers-paradise.com/dor...Book-Cover.jpg

(kim)

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
> In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
> kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>> I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be carried
>> by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit within
>> the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British tanks
>> always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?
>
> Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway
> loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production
> 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into the
> 1960s for specialist derviatives).

Was the Churchill designed so that some bits on the side could easily be
unbolted for rail transport, or am I thinking of something else?

The Comet (in production 1944) could,
> IIRC, be carried by rail if the track assemblies were dismantled.
> Centurions and more recent types had to be moved on road transporters.
>
> Tracked scouting vehicles (Scimitar and derivatives) and infantry fighting
> vehicles (AFV 432 family and Warriors) will fit on rail transporters - but
> they're not tanks.
>

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

kim wrote:
> "Andrew Robert Breen" <azb@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:1186172139.579012@leri.aber.ac.uk...
>> In article <_oqdna_Ao4Fq2S7bnZ2dnUVZ8sCsnZ2d@pipex.net>,
>> Trev <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote:
>>> "estarriol" <estarriol@estarriol.jeansNTshirt.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:f8v947$bc0$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>>>>> I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>>>> carried by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to
>>>>> fit within the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have
>>>>> British tanks always been too wide or is it a relatively modern
>>>>> phenomenon?
>>>>>
>>>> It started in 1945 with the Centurion, this being the first British tank
>>>> whose design was not constrained to be carried on British Railways.
>>>>
>>>> The design limitation had been a major factor in undergunned British
>>>> tanks
>>>> as it limited the turret ring size, which had a knock on effect to the
>>>> calibre of gun fittable.
>>> I bet Big Willey was to big too
>> I take it you mean "Big Willie", AKA "Mother" or "H.M. Landship 1"..
>>
>> It fitted. Needed the gun sponsons unbolting and swinging into the hull,
>> but with that done, it fitted - as did all the "Mk." series heavies,
>> right down to the Mk.VIII and MK.XI.
>>
>> Whippets, of course, fitted without modification.
>
> This one didn't:-
>
> http://www.modelers-paradise.com/dor...Book-Cover.jpg

Not really a tank. Unlike this, which was presumably also out of gauge:
http://www.landships.freeservers.com/lebedenko_info.htm

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in
news:JOednbEXPN3PAi7bRVnysAA@giganews.com:

....
>
> This one didn't:-
>
> http://www.modelers-paradise.com/dor...Book-Cover.jpg

Jesus weapt ... 1/35th scale!!! Build a new garage to house it in first.

--
All the best,

Chris Wilson

email to cwilson at britwar dor co dot uk, reply address is spamtrapped.
http://www.the-dormouse.org The Dormouse Line model railway

"Chris Wilson" <4rubbish@britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9982ABCBE250ulmbritwarcouk@80.5.182.99...
> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in
> news:JOednbEXPN3PAi7bRVnysAA@giganews.com:
>
> ...
>>
>> This one didn't:-
>>
>> http://www.modelers-paradise.com/dor...Book-Cover.jpg
>
> Jesus weapt ... 1/35th scale!!! Build a new garage to house it in first.

They do versions in 1/87 and 1/144 as well. Had Airfix done one it would
probably be in 1/76 but run on 1/87 track. No 1/152 scale version yet so 2mm
fans will have to scratchbuild their own

)

(kim)

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:12:01 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:

>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>> In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
>> kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>> I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be carried
>>> by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit within
>>> the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British tanks
>>> always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?
>>
>> Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway
>> loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production
>> 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into the
>> 1960s for specialist derviatives).
>
>Was the Churchill designed so that some bits on the side could easily be
>unbolted for rail transport, or am I thinking of something else?
>
Yes

The air intakes on either side had to be removed and then the tank
loaded to within 1 inch of centre, special gauges were provided to
check this, before the load was accepted as being in gauge.

Regards

Tony Cane

Secretary World war two Railway Study Group

<t.cane@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kjuab3hqov5ru09mhtvc63brb73q330gr5@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:12:01 +0100, Arthur Figgis
> <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>>> In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
>>> kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>>> carried
>>>> by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit
>>>> within
>>>> the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British
>>>> tanks
>>>> always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?
>>>
>>> Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway
>>> loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production
>>> 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into
>>> the
>>> 1960s for specialist derviatives).
>>
>>Was the Churchill designed so that some bits on the side could easily be
>>unbolted for rail transport, or am I thinking of something else?
>>
> Yes
>
> The air intakes on either side had to be removed and then the tank
> loaded to within 1 inch of centre, special gauges were provided to
> check this, before the load was accepted as being in gauge.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Cane
>
> Secretary World war two Railway Study Group

I'm assuming practically no european WW2 tanks would fit within the UK
loading gauge if produced to the correct scale? I've even seen a suggestion
that the Airfix Tiger and Panther were produced closer to 1/87th scale in
order to fit on British 1/76th scale wagons.

(kim)

"kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:TI-dnYIKUccqNijbnZ2dnUVZ8s2mnZ2d@giganews.com...
> <t.cane@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:kjuab3hqov5ru09mhtvc63brb73q330gr5@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:12:01 +0100, Arthur Figgis
>> <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>>>> In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
>>>> kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>>>> carried
>>>>> by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit
>>>>> within
>>>>> the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British
>>>>> tanks
>>>>> always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?
>>>>
>>>> Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway
>>>> loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production
>>>> 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into
>>>> the
>>>> 1960s for specialist derviatives).
>>>
>>>Was the Churchill designed so that some bits on the side could easily be
>>>unbolted for rail transport, or am I thinking of something else?
>>>
>> Yes
>>
>> The air intakes on either side had to be removed and then the tank
>> loaded to within 1 inch of centre, special gauges were provided to
>> check this, before the load was accepted as being in gauge.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tony Cane
>>
>> Secretary World war two Railway Study Group
>
> I'm assuming practically no european WW2 tanks would fit within the UK
> loading gauge if produced to the correct scale? I've even seen a
> suggestion that the Airfix Tiger and Panther were produced closer to
> 1/87th scale in order to fit on British 1/76th scale wagons.
>
They are 1/76th, but the tiger is actually in rail travel form for the
continental system, thats why the back turret bins and other things re not
there.

"kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:TI-dnYIKUccqNijbnZ2dnUVZ8s2mnZ2d@giganews.com...
> <t.cane@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:kjuab3hqov5ru09mhtvc63brb73q330gr5@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:12:01 +0100, Arthur Figgis
>> <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>>>> In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
>>>> kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>>>> carried
>>>>> by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit
>>>>> within
>>>>> the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British
>>>>> tanks
>>>>> always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?
>>>>
>>>> Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway
>>>> loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production
>>>> 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into
>>>> the
>>>> 1960s for specialist derviatives).
>>>
>>>Was the Churchill designed so that some bits on the side could easily be
>>>unbolted for rail transport, or am I thinking of something else?
>>>
>> Yes
>>
>> The air intakes on either side had to be removed and then the tank
>> loaded to within 1 inch of centre, special gauges were provided to
>> check this, before the load was accepted as being in gauge.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tony Cane
>>
>> Secretary World war two Railway Study Group
>
> I'm assuming practically no european WW2 tanks would fit within the UK
> loading gauge if produced to the correct scale? I've even seen a
> suggestion that the Airfix Tiger and Panther were produced closer to
> 1/87th scale in order to fit on British 1/76th scale wagons.
>
> (kim)
>
Panzer Mk III and possibly MarkIV would have fitted, I think. After that,
most developments were towards a lower profile, as it was realised that
high-profile tanks like the Sherman were vulnerable in tank vs tank battles.
The Sherman/Grant/Lee family were transportable by rail, albeit on
well-wagons rather than flats. I'm pretty certain the Airfix Tiger/Panther
were closer to 1/76 rather than 1/87, as the avowedly HO scale Minitanks
models of them were much smaller. Even the Germans had to change their ideas
about rail transport when the Tiger/King Tiger family came out, as they were
too heavy for 4-axle wagons, meaning that 6-axle ones had to be built. There
were also loading gauge issues for them on the western parts of the French
rail network- possibly being, indirectly, the cause of the massacre at
Oradour, as the tank regiment in question had to travel by road rather than
rail.
Brian

"estarriol" <estarriol@estarriol.jeansNTshirt.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f94amv$12$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:TI-dnYIKUccqNijbnZ2dnUVZ8s2mnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> <t.cane@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:kjuab3hqov5ru09mhtvc63brb73q330gr5@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:12:01 +0100, Arthur Figgis
>>> <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>>>>> In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
>>>>> kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be
>>>>>> carried
>>>>>> by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit
>>>>>> within
>>>>>> the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British
>>>>>> tanks
>>>>>> always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon?
>>>>>
>>>>> Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway
>>>>> loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in
>>>>> production
>>>>> 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into
>>>>> the
>>>>> 1960s for specialist derviatives).
>>>>
>>>>Was the Churchill designed so that some bits on the side could easily be
>>>>unbolted for rail transport, or am I thinking of something else?
>>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>> The air intakes on either side had to be removed and then the tank
>>> loaded to within 1 inch of

	#1
kim	Armoured vehicles and loading gauge... I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be carried by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit within the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British tanks always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon? (kim)

	#2
estarriol	Re: Armoured vehicles and loading gauge... "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message news:G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com... >I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be >carried by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit >within the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have >British tanks always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon? > It started in 1945 with the Centurion, this being the first British tank whose design was not constrained to be carried on British Railways. The design limitation had been a major factor in undergunned British tanks as it limited the turret ring size, which had a knock on effect to the calibre of gun fittable.

	#3
Andrew Robert Breen	Re: Armoured vehicles and loading gauge... In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>, kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote: >I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be carried >by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit within >the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British tanks >always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon? Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into the 1960s for specialist derviatives). The Comet (in production 1944) could, IIRC, be carried by rail if the track assemblies were dismantled. Centurions and more recent types had to be moved on road transporters. Tracked scouting vehicles (Scimitar and derivatives) and infantry fighting vehicles (AFV 432 family and Warriors) will fit on rail transporters - but they're not tanks. -- Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales "your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks" (Peter D. Rieden)

	#6
Trev	Re: Armoured vehicles and loading gauge... "estarriol" <estarriol@estarriol.jeansNTshirt.co.uk> wrote in message news:f8v947$bc0$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk... > > "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message > news:G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com... >>I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be >>carried by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to >>fit within the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have >>British tanks always been too wide or is it a relatively modern >>phenomenon? >> > It started in 1945 with the Centurion, this being the first British tank > whose design was not constrained to be carried on British Railways. > > The design limitation had been a major factor in undergunned British tanks > as it limited the turret ring size, which had a knock on effect to the > calibre of gun fittable. I bet Big Willey was to big too

	#9
Christopher A.Lee	Re: Armoured vehicles and loading gauge... On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:29:52 +0100, "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote: >My dad was there in '53, hence the Malay name. A year later I would have >been a Gustav or a Hermann! Kim is an old Celtic name, the shortened form of Kimball. >(kim) >

	#12
Tony Clarke	Re: Armoured vehicles and loading gauge... "kim" wrote > Thanks. The reason I asked here and not in an armoured group is that I've > been reading a lot of retro reviews of Airfix' armoured vehicle kits. Airfix > deliberately chose a scale of 1/76th in order to be "compatible" with 00/H0 > scale railway models but it seems the vast majority of tanks are too wide to > fit on a British railway wagon in any case. Nor will a 1/76th scale tank fit > on a 1/87th scale H0 wagon for obvious reasons. It seems as if Airfix > couldn't have picked a worse scale. Have Airfix models changed? I thought their military vehicles scale was 1/72 which is near enough for 00 (5%) oversize) and matched with a number of other items they made. Military and vehicle modelling has a range of scales that historically suited them but don't quite match railway scales. Though some aren't too far off 1/48 (some cars) is near 1/43.5 (O) and 1/35 is near and 1/32 spot on for Gauge 1, and the aircraft in 1/144 suit N. Going back to the original question about tanks on the rails, what was carried down the old Wymondham-Dereham (now Mid Norfolk Railway) line all those years? It was kept open after passenger closure in 1972 for military materiel taken to Dereham or northwards for storage until the preservation group took it over in the 90s. Not too much of a loading gauge problem there as it's single track now and decent bridge widths don't limit anything, and East Anglian lines generally tend not to have too many gauge problems as there are few tunnels (Newmarket, Ipswich and not much else). If you look at Dereham you can see MoD sleepering - concrete with slots in the middle and rail spikes instead of chairs. Continental railways have a generous enough loading gauge to permit regular military movements. I've seen Soviet T-72 tanks being unloaded at a rail yard in north eastern Czechoslovakia and driven through the streets to the army base on the hill. Scary noise when they come past on cobbles, I tell you. Tony Clarke

	#15
BH Williams	Re: Armoured vehicles and loading gauge... "Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote in message news:4KWdnf1tM8hk_i7bRVnyugA@pipex.net... > > "Tony Clarke" <ajc67@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:f8vn4a$av0$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk... >> >> "kim" wrote >> >>> Thanks. The reason I asked here and not in an armoured group is that >>> I've >>> been reading a lot of retro reviews of Airfix' armoured vehicle kits. >> Airfix >>> deliberately chose a scale of 1/76th in order to be "compatible" with >> 00/H0 >>> scale railway models but it seems the vast majority of tanks are too >>> wide >> to >>> fit on a British railway wagon in any case. Nor will a 1/76th scale tank >> fit >>> on a 1/87th scale H0 wagon for obvious reasons. It seems as if Airfix >>> couldn't have picked a worse scale. >> >> Have Airfix models changed? I thought their military vehicles scale >> was >> 1/72 which is near enough for 00 (5%) oversize) and matched with a number >> of >> other items they made. Military and vehicle modelling has a range of >> scales >> that historically suited them but don't quite match railway scales. >> Though >> some aren't too far off 1/48 (some cars) is near 1/43.5 (O) and 1/35 is >> near >> and 1/32 spot on for Gauge 1, and the aircraft in 1/144 suit N. >> >> Going back to the original question about tanks on the rails, what was >> carried down the old Wymondham-Dereham (now Mid Norfolk Railway) line all >> those years? It was kept open after passenger closure in 1972 for >> military >> materiel taken to Dereham or northwards for storage until the >> preservation >> group took it over in the 90s. Not too much of a loading gauge problem >> there >> as it's single track now and decent bridge widths don't limit anything, >> and >> East Anglian lines generally tend not to have too many gauge problems as >> there are few tunnels (Newmarket, Ipswich and not much else). If you look >> at >> Dereham you can see MoD sleepering - concrete with slots in the middle >> and >> rail spikes instead of chairs. >> >> Continental railways have a generous enough loading gauge to permit >> regular military movements. I've seen Soviet T-72 tanks being unloaded at >> a >> rail yard in north eastern Czechoslovakia and driven through the streets >> to >> the army base on the hill. Scary noise when they come past on cobbles, I >> tell you. >> >> Tony Clark > In my days 62 to 72. In Germany We some times used rail and sometimes Road > depending on where we where going with our Cents and Even the conquers up > to chieftains > The traffic for Dereham, which has sometimes run since preservation, is of armoured personnel carriers and similar- the largest of these, the Warrior, is carried on modified Warwells and is subject to strict loading gauge restrictions. On one occasion, a train from Ludgershall to the ranges north of Catterick was sent via the platform road, rather than the loop, at Tyseley, and removed a large chunk of the recently restored canopy valancing. The BAOR tanks were carried on Warflats, which had been extended sideways to accomodate the post-Centurion MBTs- some 81 of these were repatriated to Eurotunnel's Cheriton terminal a few years ago, there being transferred to low-loaders for the onward journey. Brian

	#20
Arthur Figgis	Re: Armoured vehicles and loading gauge... Andrew Robert Breen wrote: > In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>, > kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote: >> I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be carried >> by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit within >> the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British tanks >> always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon? > > Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway > loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production > 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into the > 1960s for specialist derviatives). Was the Churchill designed so that some bits on the side could easily be unbolted for rail transport, or am I thinking of something else? The Comet (in production 1944) could, > IIRC, be carried by rail if the track assemblies were dismantled. > Centurions and more recent types had to be moved on road transporters. > > Tracked scouting vehicles (Scimitar and derivatives) and infantry fighting > vehicles (AFV 432 family and Warriors) will fit on rail transporters - but > they're not tanks. > -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

	#22
Chris Wilson	Re: Armoured vehicles and loading gauge... "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in news:JOednbEXPN3PAi7bRVnysAA@giganews.com: .... > > This one didn't:- > > http://www.modelers-paradise.com/dor...Book-Cover.jpg Jesus weapt ... 1/35th scale!!! Build a new garage to house it in first. -- All the best, Chris Wilson email to cwilson at britwar dor co dot uk, reply address is spamtrapped. http://www.the-dormouse.org The Dormouse Line model railway

	#24
t.cane@btinternet.com	Re: Armoured vehicles and loading gauge... On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:12:01 +0100, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote: >Andrew Robert Breen wrote: >> In article <G_2dnXtL3awuuS7b4p2dnAA@giganews.com>, >> kim <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote: >>> I read recently (it might even have been here) that tanks have to be carried >>> by road transporter rather than by rail as they are too wide to fit within >>> the British loading gauge. When did this practice begin? Have British tanks >>> always been too wide or is it a relatively modern phenomenon? >> >> Last British battle tank which could be carried within the .uk railway >> loading gauge without being dismantled was the Churchill (in production >> 1941-45, in service until after the end of the Korean war - maybe into the >> 1960s for specialist derviatives). > >Was the Churchill designed so that some bits on the side could easily be >unbolted for rail transport, or am I thinking of something else? > Yes The air intakes on either side had to be removed and then the tank loaded to within 1 inch of centre, special gauges were provided to check this, before the load was accepted as being in gauge. Regards Tony Cane Secretary World war two Railway Study Group