• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

(Paper No. 4326.) “ The War Department Cross-Channel Train Ferry.” By FREDERICKOWEX STAKFORD,O.B.E., Assoc. M. Inst. C.E. TEIE TrainFerry Service between England and France was established in 1917 by the War Department as a “war service,” to meet the demands and requirements of military transport, which had become acute under the conditions which then existed. There was, at that time, both a serious shortage of shipping a,nd a great congestion atthe ports,particularly on the French side, which delayed the turn-round of the ships employed on this traffic. An appreciable proportion of the traffic consisted of locomotives, wagons, ambulance coaches, tanks, heavy ordnance, motor transport, and other bulky material, equally inconvenient to stow, occupying an undue amount of space in the holds of vessels, requiring much man-power, crane-power and time toload and unload, and frequently necessitatingthe dismantling and subsequent re-erection of the machinery. The first reason for establishing the ferry service was therefore to relieve the shipping of this class of trafic ; the second was to provide the ferry steamers with their own berths, without taking up any of the already over-taxed existing quay space ; thirdly, to effect a valuable saving of handling at a timewhen man-power was of vital importance and crane-power a serious consideration; and fourthly, to afford means of meeting urgent demands for any special war material, such as guns or ammunition, by delivery, in case of possible emergency, straight from the factory to the theatre of war by rail without any transhipment, when time might mean everything. There were other points also to be considered, such as the initial cost of the scheme, andthe disadvantage of requiringtime ancl Downloaded by [ University of Ottawa Library System] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved. Proceedings.] CROSS-CHANNEL TRAIN FERRY. 209 labour for its installation, and to some extent interfering with the provisionof ordinary shipping, which was aquestion of great importance. It was decided, however, that as a war measure the advantages far outweighed thedisadvantages, and in January, 1917, the Cabinet decided that the scheme should be proceeded with, on the basis of providingthree ferry steamers and terminal berths at Richborough (near Sandwich) and on the Solent, in England, and at correspondingpoints in France. The latter were ultimately selected, in conjunction with the French authorities, as Dunkirk, Calais and Dieppe. The authority of the French Government for the establishment of the installations for the ferry-boats in these ports was given on 12th February, ‘1917. There are thus two ferry routes, namely, the northern from Rich- borough to Dunkirk or Calais, on which two vessels are engaged, andthe southern between Southampton and Dieppe with one vessel.’ This arrangement anticipated a military contingency which was afterwards seriously threatened, but fortunately averted, namely, the necessitythrough enemy action, of suspending the northern routetemporarily, and falling back on the southern. Although this never occurred, the use of Dunkirk was restricted for a con- siderable period, when the advantage of an alternative terminal at Calais was realized (Fig. 1, Plate 5). Although the earliest installations of train ferries of which any published accountcan be traced, namely, across the river Nile in2 1857 and across the Forth and the Tay in 1861, had been established by British engineers, and had been followed in 1885 by the Isle of Wight Train Ferry, the system had not been further developed in the British Isles. Schemes for a Channel Ferry had been suggested as far back as 1871, and though revived in 1905-1907, and again in 1913, the outbreak of war found the project still unaccomplished. In other parts of the world, however, under different geographical conditions, the system had been widely adopted :-in Canada, the United States, Denmark, Sweden, (3ermany and elsewhere. When the War Department had the question under consideration, there- fore, they obtained the assistance of a very comprehensive review of the published accounts of existing ferries, prepared through the courtesy of The Institution by Mr. W. E. Simnett, M.B.E., formerly a member of the Secretary’s staff,to whom the Author is indebted. While this reportis too extJensiveto be quoted at length, it contains . ~- . * This Paper was written in December, 1919. 2 Minutes of Proceedings Inst. C.E., vols. xvii and XI. [THE INST. C.&. VOL. CCX.] P Downloaded by [ University of Ottawa Library System] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved. 210 6TASFORD ON THE WAR DRPACT>lKST [Minutes of so much collected information of interest to thoseconcerned with the subject that it is to be hoped that it may be printed and issued separately. From the consideration of the particulars of existing systems the following main features suggestthemselves. A trainferry, as a means of connectingtwo railwny systems which are divided by water, may be regarded as an alternative for R tunnel or bridge, or as a temporary substitute until suchcon- tinuousconnection is provided. Theferry, of course,involves interruption in the journey of the train. It is usually necessary to break up the train into lengths before it can be loaded on to the vessel, and tojoin up again after beingunloaded. One of the firstconsiderations is thatthe gauge of thetwo railway systems thus connected should be the same, or sufficiently alike to enable rolling stock to run on both systems. This question TVKS dealtwith by SirJohn A. F. Aspinall inhis Presidential Address (5th November, 1018), and is referred to in more detail in connection with this undertaking later on. The field of utility occurswhere a bridge or tunnel is nota practicalproposition, on account of the physical difficulties and great cost, in proportion to the traffic to be dealt with ; where, as in the present instance, the time taken to install the communication is of importmce; and where the distance is suDicient!y short, as compared with a voyage by ordinary shipping, that the saving in double handling, breaking bulk and time is in such a proportion to the total cost of the voyage as to result in economy. The train ferry, of course, carries the same proportion of tare as both theordinary cargo-ship and the railway, with the general exception of the locomotive and tender in the latter case. The ferryvessels may be eitherself-propelled, or dumb floats towed by tugs. The type and details of those in use vary widely under different conditions, but it is of importance that the vessels on any one ferry system should be so far identical as regards their hulls, shore connections and landing arrangements as to be available at any terminal berth of the system. The terminal arrangements in use also vary according to local conditions.Those for overcoming the differences in water-level maybe broadly classified underfour types, (U) communicating bridges or Brozos hinged at the shore end and suspended near the outerend, with counterbalance weights ; (B) similar brozcs, but supported at the outer end by pontoons ; (c) lifts, either hydraulic or electric on shore; and (d) a liftingwdjustable deck on the vessel. In each case some form of flexible apron is usually employed tq Downloaded by [ University of Ottawa Library System] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved. Proceedings.] CROSS-CIIANNEL TRAIN FERRY. 211 effect the actual connection between the rails on the shore and those onthe vessel. As inthe case of the vessels, whichever type is adopted, all the terminals of a ferry system should be so far identical in their arrangements as to fit anyof the vessels. The general arrangements for berthing the vessels, and the lay out of the railway sidings at the terminal stations, havenecessarily to be varied to suit the local conditions of the site, both on shore and afloat in each case. The selection of suitable termina.1 ports for a train ferry service involves theconsideration of the access byland, including the railway connections and facilities for adequate sidings, and of the access by sea, including the tides and berthingaccommodation. ROUTNES. Table I gives theapproximate distances between the terminal ports : TABLEI. , Southampton.Richborough. Dunkirk ....... 69 I 60 ~ 180 ~ 157 Calais ........ 44 35 1 155 135 At Richborough, Southa,mpton and Dieppe, the train ferry berths are in tidal water, and the times of arrival and departure of the vessels ancl the working of traffic on and off the vessels is dependent on the state of the tide. At Dunkirk and Calais the berths are in closed basins, so that the working of the traffic can proceed at any time. The arrival and departure of the vessels is, however, partly restricted by the working of the t,iclal entrances to these ports, so thatthe ferry service tl~roughoutis a tidal one. Therailway connection at Richborough is made by a junction with the South Eastern and Cha.tham Railway near Minster. Theconnection at Southamptcm ismade by a linealong the westernforeshore to a junctionwith the London and South- Western Railway at Sout'hampton. West. Atthe three French ports the connection is made with the existing dock sidings and thus with the French railway system, P2 Downloaded by [ University of Ottawa Library System] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved. 212 STANFORD ON THE WAR DEPARTJIENT [Minutes of GAUGES. The gauge adopted for the train ferry was the English standard, 4 feet S$ inches, and for the maximum loading-gauge, the profile whichhad already been chosen by the War Departmentfor the construction of locomotives, cranes and rolling-stock for over-seas. This profile is that adoptedby the Berne International Con- ference with two slight modifications, namely, the exclusion of two smalltriangles at thebottom corners and the provision of a minimum of 7 inches instead of 54 inches clearance above rail level, Fig.

Load more

  31

Copy Link