Narrow Gauge Adventure: The story of The Craig & Mertonford Railway

Thanks to Kev Robertson's recent blog post about NARROW GAUGE ADVENTURE: THE STORY OF THE CRAIG & MERTONFORD RAILWAY by P D Hancock reminded me that I had read this book when it was first published, and that it – and his articles in model railway magazines – was the reason why I became enamoured of narrow gauge model railways.

As a result, I did a search on the internet and found a second-hand copy of the book on sale at a reasonable price ... and bought it! It was delivered last Saturday and I have spend several hours engrossed in reading it ... and getting lots of ideas for my future layouts!

The book is split into eleven chapters and three appendices:

• 1. The idea is born
• 2. An historical digression
• 3. The early years
• 4. The year of the trams
• 5. The middle years
• 6. Putting back the clock
• 7. The second Craigshire
• 8. I like locomotives
• 9. The narrow-gauge locomotives
• 10. The standard-gauge locomotives
• 11. The Craigshire landscape
• Appendix 1: Operating timetable
• Appendix 2: Rolling Stock
• Appendix 3: Things that might have been

The book contains lots of inspiring monochrome photographs and drawings, including several maps that show the various stages of the development of the layout and some intriguing ones that show what the layout might have looked out had circumstance been different.

---

NARROW GAUGE ADVENTURE: THE STORY OF THE CRAIG & MERTONFORD RAILWAY was written by P D Hancock and published in 1975 by Peco Publications and Publicity Ltd (SBN 900586 44 4).

Nugget 372

The editor of THE NUGGET sent me the latest issue on Sunday evening, and I sent it to the printer (Macauley Scott Printing Company, Welling, Kent) on Tuesday morning. I hope to be able to collect it later this week and post it out to members of Wargame Developments by next weekend.

---

IMPORTANT: Please note that this is the ninth issue of THE NUGGET to be published for the 2024-2025 subscription year.

If you wish to subscribe for the 2024-2025 subscription year and have not yet done so, please request a PayPal invoice or the bank transfer information from the Treasurer or follow the instructions on the relevant page of the website.

The sinking of the Bismarck

On 27th May 1941, the German battleship Bismarck was sunk by units of the Royal Navy.

Bismarck.

Prinz Eugen.

She had left Germany in the company of the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen on 19th May, and after sailing through the Kattegat (where she was spotted by the Swedish cruiser HSwMS Gotland) and reached Norwegian waters on the following evening. By midday on 21st May, Bismarck and Prinz Eugen and a small flotilla of destroyers reached Bergen and anchored in Grimstadfjord.

HSwMS Gotland.

At 7.30pm on 21st May, Bismarck, Prinz Eugen, and the three escorting destroyers left Bergen, The destroyers part company with the battleship and the cruiser at not long after 4.00am on 22st May, and at midday the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen turned towards the Denmark Strait and thence into the North Atlantic.

By this time the British Home Fleet were aware that the two German ships had left Norway and units had begun to deploy to intercept them.

At 7.22pm on 23rd May, the German warships detected the cruiser HMS Suffolk at a range of approximately 12,500 m (13,700 yd). HMS Suffolk was joined by HMS Norfolk at 8.30pm, and the pair of cruisers shadowed the German ships using their radar equipment.

HMS Suffolk.

HMS Norfolk.

At 05.45am on 24th May, the Germans spotted the smoke of the fast aproching HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales on the horizon, and at 5.52am HMS Hood opened fire on Prinz Eugen. HMS Prince of Wales opened fire a minute or so later, and by soon afterwards the two German ships began to return fire.

Eight minutes after opening fire, HMS Hood was hit by several heavy shells, exploded, and sank. The Bismarck switched her fire to HMS Prince of Wales and immediately hit the ship's bridge. This, coupled with a serious problems with the ship's main armament that reduced her to a broadside of five rather than ten 14-inch guns, caused her captain to turn away and break off the action. She then joined the two British cruisers who continued to shadow the German warships.

After ascertaining the extent of damaged caused by the British three shells that had hit Bismarck, Admiral Lütjens, who was in command of the two German ships, ordered the Prinz Eugen to sail towards France, which she did at 6.14pm during a squall.(One shell had hit the forward part of the Bismarck causing approximately 2,000 tons of water to flood into the ship, contaminating fuel oil stored in the bow tanks and flooding in one of the boiler room).

Bismarck then turned towards the shadowing British ships, and HMS Prince of Wales fired twelve salvos at the Bismarck, which returned fire. Neither side scored any hits. The Bismarck then resumed her previous course and the three British ships continued to shadow her from a distance.

At 10:00pm, the recently commissioned HMS Victorious launched an attack on the Bismarck by nine Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers. Of the eight torpedoes they launched, only one hit the Bismarck, and it caused minor damage amidships. However, the violent manoeuvres Bismarck undertook to avoid the torpedoes increased the flooding in the forward part of the ship and resulted in the loss of a second boiler room. This caused Bismarck to reduce speed to 16 knots until repairs could be completed. She was then able to increase speed to 20 knots.

HMS Victorius.

Admiral Lütjens now decided that Bismarck should set course for France. At 03.00am on 25th May Lütjens ordered an increase in speed and for Bismarck to turn to the west and then northwards. As a result of the manoeuvre, Bismarck caused the shadowing British ships to lose contact.

The German admiral then sent a long radio signal to Naval Group West headquarters in Paris. This enabled the British signal interception service to take bearings that provided an up-to-date position of the German battleship. Unfortunately, this was misplotted on HMS King George V (which was leading the search for the Bismarck) and it was not until an RAF Consolidated Catalina flying boat spotted her at 10.30am on 26th May that the Bismarck's accurate position and course were known to her pursuers.

HMS Ark Royal.

HMS Sheffield.

HMS Ark Royal, which was part of Force H, mounted an torpedo bomber attack on Bismarck. The Fairey Swordfish aircraft mistakenly attacked HMS Sheffield ... and discovered that the magnetic detonators fitted to their torpedoes were faulty. The aircraft returned to HMS Ark Royal, rearmed with torpedoes fitted with conventional contact detonators and made a second attack on the German battleship. At 8.47pm, the Swordfish began their attack, and despite undertaking violent manoeuvres and firing at the aircraft with every available gun, two torpedoes hit the Bismarck.

One torpedoe hit her amidships on the port side, just under the main armour belt. This caused minor damage and some flooding. The second torpedo also hit Bismarck on the port side near the stern and close to the port rudder shaft. More importantly, the port rudder assembly was badly damaged by this torpedo hit and jammed the rudder at an angle of 12° to port. This caused her to steer in a very large circle.

The Bismarck was now unable to escape her pursuers. HMS Sheffield, which was now in visual range of the Bismarck, was driven off by several salvoes of 15-inch shells. Her shadowing role was now taken on by five destroyers that were under the command of Captain Philip Vian. They intercepted the German battleship at 10.38pm on 26th May.

During the night of 26th/27th May, the destroyers mounted several torpedo attacks on the Bismarck, none of which were successful. Just after daybreak on 27th May, HMS King George V and HMS Rodney came in to view and at 8.47am the latter opened fire on the Bismarck at a range of approximately 25,000 yards (23,000 m).

HMS Rodney.

HMS King George V.

Moments later, HMS King George V also opened fire, and at 8.50am the Bismarck began firing at HMS Rodney. As the range reduced, the British heavy cruisers HMS Norfolk and HMS Dorsetshire began firing salvoes of 5-inch shells at the Bismarck and at 09.02am, one of HMS Rodney's 16-inch shells hit the Bismarck's forward superstructure, killing hundreds of men (probably including Admiral Lütjens and Bismarck's captain, Captain Lindemann) and seriously damaging the battleship's two forward turrets (Anton and Bruno).

Bismarck's forward turrets ceased firing at 9.27am, and by 9.31am her rear turrets (Caesar and Dora) were also no longer firing. At 9.30am, the Bismarck's executive officer Fregattenkapitän Hans Oels ordered:

• Any crew remaining below decks to abandon ship.
• The opening of the ship's watertight doors to enable crew to escape quickly and to assist in the scuttling of the ship.
• The preparation of the ship's scuttling charges.

At around 10.20am the ship's chief engineering officer (Gerhard Junack) set of the scuttling charges, by which time the British battleships were firing at the helpless Bismarck at a range of approximately 3,000 yards (2,700 m). At the same time, HMS Dorsetshire was ordered to close in and torpedo Bismarck. She fired three, two on the target's port side and one on the starboard side ... and by 10.40am Bismarck had sunk.

HMS Dorsetshire.

Only 114 of Bismarck's crew of over 2,200 men survived.

The first Imperial Brazilian Ironclads

Why did the Imperial Brazilian Navy acquire ironclads?

In 1862, Francisco Solano López became the President-Dictator of Paraguay. He modernised and expanded the nation’s industries – particularly steel, textiles, paper, ink, shipbuilding, armaments, and gunpowder – as well as installing telegraph lines and building railways.

He also modernised and expanded the Paraguayan armed forces and greatly strengthened the nation’s defences by constructing the Fortress of Humaitá as well as fortifications on the Apa River and in the Gran Chaco.

Although the shipyards could construct smaller warships, they were not able to build ironclads, and López ordered seven from British and French shipyards. These were the Belona and Minerva from John Laird of Birkenhead, the Triton, Medusa, Cabral, and Colombo from J and G Rennie of Millwall, and Nemesis from Arman Brothers, Bordeaux.

This policy of expansion was viewed with growing apprehension by Paraguay’s neighbours, particularly Brazil and Argentina, and they responded by expanding their own armed forces.

At the time, Uruguay had a Blanco party government that was fighting a revolt led by the Colorado party. The Blancos enjoyed friendly relations with López’s government whereas the Colorados were supported by the Imperial Brazilians. The Paraguayans sent several diplomatic notes to both the Brazilians and Argentinians warning them note to involve themselves in Uruguayan internal politics.

The Brazilians – who were supported by the Argentinians – ignored this, and 12th October 1864, they invaded Uruguay. In response, on 15th December 1864 the Paraguayans retaliated by invading the Brazilian province of Mato Grosso, and on 23rd March 1865 they declared war on Argentina. By this time the Colorados – with Brazilian assistance – had seized control in Uruguay, and on 1st May 1865 the Empire of Brazil, the Republic of Argentina, and the Republic of Uruguay signed the Secret Treaty of the Triple Alliance, and the Paraguayan War began in earnest.

When the was broke out, the Imperial Brazilian navy had no ironclads, but it was obvious that if they were to defeat the Paraguayans, such ships would be needed.

The lessons of the American Civil War – and particularly the riverine operations on the Mississippi – showed that armoured warships were going to be needed if the allied armed forces were to be able to advance up the River Paraguay and overcome the Fortress of Humaitá. As a result, the Imperial Brazilian Navy ordered four ironclads, three from a Brazilian naval shipyard (Barrozo, Tamandare, and Rio de Janeiro from Arsenal de Marinha da Côrte, Rio de Janeiro) and one – Brazil – from Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée, La Seyne-sur-Mer, France. They were also able to buy the seven undelivered Paraguayan ironclads, which were renamed Lima Barros, Bahia, Silvado, Mariz e Barros, Herval, Cabral, and Colombo.

---

The Imperial Brazilian Ironclads

Barrozo

• Builder: Arsenal de Marinha da Côrte, Rio de Janeiro
• Cost: £55,046
• Laid down: 21st February 1865; Launched: 4th November 1865; Completed: 11th January 1866
• Displacement: 960 tons
• Dimensions: Length: 61.44 m (201 ft 7 in); Beam: 10.97 m (36 ft 0 in); Draught: 2.74 m (9.0 ft)
• Propulsion: 2 x boilers; 1 x steam engine; 1 shaft
• Speed: 9 knots
• Complement: 149 officers and men
• Armament: 1 × 120-pounder Whitworth rifled muzzle-loading guns; 2 × 70-pounder Whitworth rifled guns; 2 × 68-pounder smoothbore guns; 2 × 12-pounder smoothbore guns
• Armour: Belt: 51–102 mm (2.0–4.0 in); Casemate: 102 mm (4.0 in); Deck: 12.7 mm (0.50 in)

Brasil

• Builder: Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée, La Seyne-sur-Mer
• Laid down: 1864; Launched: 23rd December 1864; Commissioned: 2nd March 1865
• Displacement: 1,494 tons
• Dimensions: Length: 63.41 m (208 ft 0 in); Beam: 10.75 m (35 ft 3 in); Draught: 3.81 m (12.5 ft)
• Propulsion: 2 x boilers, 1 x steam engine, 1 shaft
• Speed:10.5 knots
• Armament: 4 × 70-pounder Whitworth rifled guns; 4 × 68-pounder smoothbore guns
• Armour: Belt: 90–114 mm (3.5–4.5 in); Casemate: 102 mm (4.0 in)

Tamandare

• Builder: Arsenal de Marinha da Corte, Rio de Janeiro
• Cost: £40,506
• Laid down: 31st May 1865; Launched: 21st June 1865: Completed:16th September 1865 
• Displacement: 742 tons Dimensions: Length: 51.36 m (168 ft 6 in); Beam: 9.19 m (30 ft 2 in); Draught: 2.44 m (8.0 ft)
• Propulsion: 2 x boilers; 1 x steam engine; 1 shaft
• Speed: 8 knots
• Complement: 120 officers and men
• Armament: 1 × 70-pounder Whitworth rifled gun; 3 × 68-pounder smoothbore guns; 2 × 12-pounder smoothbore guns
• Armour: Belt: 51–102 mm (2.0–4.0 in); Casemate: 102 mm (4.0 in); Deck: 12.7 mm (0.50 in)

Rio de Janeiro

• Builder: Arsenal de Marinha da Corte, Rio de Janeiro
• Cost: £47,409 Laid down: 28th June 1865; Launched:18th February 1866; Completed: 1st March 1866; Commissioned: April 1866
• Displacement: 857 tons Dimensions: Length: 56.69 m (186 ft 0 in); Beam: 9.19 m (30 ft 2 in); Draught: 2.62 m (8.6 ft)
• Propulsion: 2 x boilers, 1 steam engine, 1 shaft
• Speed: 9 knots
• Complement: 148 officers and men
• Armament: 2 × 70-pounder Whitworth rifled guns; 2 × 68-pounder smoothbore guns
• Armour: Belt: 51–102 mm (2.0–4.0 in); Casemate: 102 mm (4.0 in); Deck: 12.7 mm (0.50 in)

Lima Barros (originally the Paraguayan Belona)

• Builder: Laird Brothers, Birkenhead
• Laid down: 1864; Launched: 21st December 1865; Completed: 3rd April 1866
• Displacement: 1,705 tons
• Dimensions: Length: 200 ft 2 in (61.0 m); Beam:38 ft 2 in (11.6 m); Draught:12 ft 8 in (3.9 m)
• Propulsion: 2 trunk steam engines; 2 shafts
• Speed:12 knots
• Complement: 170 officers and men
• Armament: 2 × twin 120-pounder Whitworth rifled muzzle-loading guns
• Armour: Belt: 3–4.5 in (76–114 mm); Gun turrets: 4.5 in (114 mm)

Bahia (originally the Paraguayan Minerva)

• Builder: Laird Brothers, Birkenhead
• Laid down: 1864; Launched: 11th June 1865; Completed: 22nd January 1866
• Displacement: 928 tons Dimensions: Length: 175 ft 8 in (53.5 m); Beam: 35 ft 2 in (10.7 m); Draught: 7 ft 9 in (2.4 m)
• Propulsion: 2 x boilers; 2 trunk steam engines; 2 shafts
• Speed: 10 knots
• Complement: 120 officers and men
• Armament: 2 × 120-pounder Whitworth rifled muzzle-loading guns
• Armour: Belt: 3–4.5 in (76–114 mm); Gun turret: 4.5 in (114 mm)

Silvado (originally the Paraguayan Nemesis)

• Builder: Arman Brothers, Bordeaux
• Laid down:1864; Launched:1865; Completed:15th September 1866
• Displacement: 1,330 tons
• Dimensions: Length: 66 m (216 ft 6 in); Beam: 11.6 m (38 ft 1 in); Draught: 3.9 m (13 ft)
• Propulsion: 2 x trunk steam engines; 2 shafts
• Speed: 10 knots
• Complement: 170 officers and men
• Armament: 2 × twin 70-pounder Whitworth rifled muzzle-loading guns
• Armour: Belt: 3–4.5 in (76–114 mm); Gun turret: 4.5 in (110 mm)

Mariz e Barros-class (Mariz e Barros and Herval, originally the Paraguayan Triton and Medusa)

• Builder: J. and G. Rennie, Millwall, London
• Laid down: 1865; Launched: 1865; Commissioned: 1866
• Displacement: 1,196 tons
• Dimension: Length: 191 ft (58 m); Beam: 36.1 ft (11.0 m); Draught: 8.20 ft (2.50 m)
• Propulsion: 2 x steam engines; 2 shafts
• Speed: 9 knots
• Complement:125 officers and enlisted men
• Armament: 2 x 120-pounder Armstrong Whitworth muzzle-loading rifled guns; 2 × 68-pounder smoothbore guns (Mariz e Barros) OR 4 × 120-pounder Armstrong Whitworth muzzle-loading rifled guns (Herval)
• Armour: Belt: 3 in–4.5 in (76 mm–114 mm)

Cabral-class (Cabral and Colombo, originally ordered by Paraguay)

• Builders: J. and G. Rennie, Millwall, London
• Laid down:1864; Completed: 1866
• Displacement: 1,033 tons
• Dimensions: Length: 160 ft (48.8 m); Beam: 35 ft 6 in (10.8 m); Draught: 11.75–12.1 ft (3.6–3.7 m)
• Propulsion: 2 x steam engines; 2 shafts
• Speed: 10.5 knots
• Armament: 8 × 70-pounder Whitworth rifled muzzle-loading guns (Cabral) OR a mixture of 70-pounder Whitworth rifled muzzle-loading guns and 68-pounder smoothbore guns (Colombo)
• Armour: Belt: 3–4.5 in (76–114 mm)

The Budget Model Railway Challenge: The layout suggested by ChatGPT ... doesn't fit of the floating shelf!

Having asked ChatGPT to design a layout that meets the Budget Model Railways Challenge, I assembled the various pieces of track it recommended and put them together ... and it didn't fit onto the floating shelf as it was too long!

In the end, I decided to design my own layout ... and this is what it looked like:

I tested that it was possible to do some shunting, and made a short video that I have uploaded to my YouTube channel. It can be seen here.

The next step is to paint the floating shelf and then fix the track to it.

The anniversary of the sinking of HMS Hood

On 24th May 1941, HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales intercepted the German battleship Bismarck and cruiser Prinz Eugen in the Denmark Strait … and within ten minutes of the British opening fire, HMS Hood blew up and sank in three minutes. Only three of her crew survived, and soon afterwards HMS Prince of Wales was hit by several 8-inch/20.3cm and 15-inch/38cm and began to experience problems with her main armament. Her captain — Captain John Catteral Leach — decided to break off the action and Bismarck sailed on into the Atlantic, later to be sunk by HMS King George V and HMS Rodney after being damaged by torpedoes dropped by Fairey Swordfish aircraft from HMS Ark Royal.

---

HMS Hood was intended to be the first of four Admiral-class battlecruisers, which were originally conceived as improved versions of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. However, as the Germans were apparently building bigger and better battlecruisers than those available to the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet, it was decided to recast the design so that four fast and heavily armed battlecruisers could be added to the fleets battlecruiser force. The class was to have consisted of HMS Hood, HMS Anson, HMS Howe, and HMS Rodney, but the latter three ships were suspended so that the material needed to build them could be diverted so that higher-priority merchantmen and escort vessels could be built.

As designed, HMS Hood's characteristics were as follows:

• Displacement 45,470 tons
• Dimensions:
• Length: 860ft (262.1m)
• Beam: 104ft (31.7m)
• Draught: 31ft 6in (9.6m)
• Propulsion: 24 Yarrow boilers providing steam to 4 geared turbines, each driving a propeller
• Speed: 32 knots
• Range: 7,500 nautical miles at 14 knots
• Complement: 820
• Armament:
• 4 × twin 15-inch/380mm guns
• 16 × single 5.5-inch/140mm guns
• 4 × single 4-inch/102mm AA guns
• 10 × 21-inch/533 mm torpedo tubes
• Armour:
• Belt: 5 to 12 inches (127mm to 305mm)
• Decks: 1 to 5 inches (20mm to 127mm)
• Barbettes: 12 icnhes (305mm)
• Turrets: 11 to 15 inches (279mm to 381mm)
• Conning tower: 9 to 11 inches (229mm to 279mm)
• Torpedo bulkheads: 0.75 to 1.5 inches (19mm to 38mm)

She was laid down at John Bown's shipyard on the River Clyde on 1st September 1916, launched on 22nd August 1918, and commissioned on 15th May. She looked graceful and menacing, and very soon became the most well-known and admired warship in the Royal Navy.

Shortly after commissioning she became the flagship of the Battlecruiser Squadron of the Atlantic Fleet. She visited Scandinavia towards the end of 1920, and then joined the Mediterranean fleet from 1921 to 1922. HMS Hood then took part in a visit to Brazil and the Caribbean, followed in November 1923 by a world cruise from west to east via the Panama Canal. This cruise lasted ten months and included visits to South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.

HMS Hood in 1924.

On her return to the UK, HMS Hood spent half the year in home waters and the other half in the Mediterranean. She underwent a major refit from 1st May 1929 to 10th March 1931. During this refit a catapult, crane and associated equipment were fitted to the quarterdeck aft of 'Y' turret. She cruised to the Caribbean in early 1932, followed by a short refit from 31st March and 10th May 1932, during which the catapult and other equipment were removed. A further short refit took place from 1st August and 5th September 1934, as a result of which her secondary and antiaircraft fire-control directors were rearranged.

HMS Hood in 1932. At this time she was fitted with a catapult on her quarterdeck.

By this time HMS Hood was spending more time in the Mediterranean, although she did returned to the UK in 1936 for a refit that lasted from 26th June to 10th October. By this time HMS Hood was in need of a substantial reconstruction and renovation to ensure that she would be able to continue in front line service, and this was planned to take place in 1941. The main changes were as follows:

• The installation of new, lighter turbines and boilers
• The replacement of her existing secondary armament by eight twin 5.25-inch (133mm) gun turrets.
• The installation of six octuple 2-pounder anti-aircraft guns
• The reinforcement of the deck armour.
• The fitting of a cross-deck aircraft catapult.
• The removal of the torpedo tubes.
• The removal of the conning tower.
• The rebuilding of the bridge superstructure.

As it was, none of this took place, although HMS Hood's secondary armament was replaced. By 1940 the 5.5-inch guns had been removed, as had her 4-inch anti-aircraft guns. In their place, she was fitted with seven twin QF 4-inch Mark XVI dual-purpose guns and five unrotated projectile (UP) launchers, each of which could fire twenty projectiles. It is worth noting that in 1931, a pair of octuple mountings for the 40mm (1.6-inch) QF 2-pounder Mk VIII anti-aircraft guns had been mounted on the shelter deck, abreast of the funnels, with a third added in 1937. In addition, two quadruple Vickers 0.5-inch (12.7mm) Mk III machine gun were added in 1933 and a further two in 1937. She did, however, retain six fixed 21-inch (533mm) torpedo tubes, three on each broadside.

Once the Second World War had broken out, HMS Hood joined the Home Fleet, and took part in operations in the North Sea, during which her port torpedo bulge and freshwater condensers — which were already seriously malfunctioning — were damaged by 250kg (550lb) bomb dropped by a Junkers Ju88 bomber. By early 1940 her propulsion machinery was in very poor condition and her maximum speed was 26.5 knots. As a result, HMS Hood underwent some remedial repairs during a refit that lasted from 4th April to 12th June 1940.

HMS Hood then joined Force H in the Mediterranean and in July 1940 she took part in Operation Catapult, the Royal Navy's attempt to neutralise the French fleet moored at Mers-el-Kébir. She returned to the UK in August 1940 and in January 1941 she underwent yet another refit that lasted until March. Despite this, HMS Hood remained in a very poor condition, and she underwent no further refits before she was sunk on 21st May 1941.

Captain Leach's sketch of the explosion that caused HMS Hood to sink.

So, why did she sink?

At the time, the Admiralty Board of Enquiry reported the 'probable cause of the loss of HMS Hood was direct penetration of the protection by one or more 15-inch shells at a range of 16,500 yards (15,100m), resulting in the explosion of one or more of the aft magazines.'

The Director of Naval Construction — Sir Stanley V. Goodall — proposed an an alternative theory. He argued that HMS Hood had been destroyed by one of the warheads of her torpedoes exploding. This led to the convening of a second Board of Enquiry which concluded that 'the sinking of Hood was due to a hit from Bismarck's 15-inch shell in or adjacent to Hood's 4-inch or 15-inch magazines, causing them all to explode and wreck the after part of the ship. The probability is that the 4-inch magazines exploded first.'

The wreck of HMS Hood was found in 2001, and the images showed that the aft magazines had exploded and that the bow forward 'A' Turret was missing. The most recent evidence suggests that the initial explosion took place in the aft section of the ship — probably a German 15-inch shell exploding in the 4-inch magazine which caused a fire and cordite explosion that spread to the neighbouring 15-inch magazine — and that the resulting rapidly expanding combustion gases caused the hull to experience structural failure and to break into two at the aft armoured bulkhead.

---

Captain John Catterall Leach, DSO, MVO was the father of Admiral of the Fleet Sir Henry Conyers Leach, GCB, DL (18th November 1923 to 26th April 2011), who served as First Sea Lord during the Falklands War

The Budget Model Railway Challenge: A suggested layout … from ChatGPT

Whilst playing around with ChatGPT, I decided to ask it to design me a layout to meet this challenge. I phrased my request as follows:

Please design me a model railway end-to-end layout that will fit on a 60cm x 23.5cm board and that uses Kato Unitrack. It should have at least one set of points and at least one siding. Please list the Kato track pieces I will need to make the layout.

In reply, it gave me the following answer:

Here is a compact end-to-end model railway layout designed specifically to fit on a 60cm x 23.5cm board using Kato Unitrack (N Scale). It features a main line, one turnout (point), and a siding, ideal for shunting small trains or scenic dioramas.

Layout Overview

• Type: End-to-end
• Dimensions: 60cm x 23.5cm (board)
• Scale: N Scale 
• System: Kato Unitrack
• Features:
• One main line
• One siding (via a turnout)
• Space for scenic elements or small structures

Required Kato Unitrack pieces

• 2 x 20-000 Straight track 248mm
• 1 x 20-020 Straight track 124mm
• 1 x 20-045 Turnout #4 left (or right) ~124 branch
• 1 x 20-040 or 20-041 Curve R481-15° or R282-45° (optional, if curving siding)
• 1 x 20-010 Straight track 62mm (for siding)
• 1 x 24-850 Bumper track (buffer stop)

ChatGPT's suggested track plan.

Total Length Calculation

• Main line:
• 2 x 248mm = 496mm 
• 1 x 124mm (with turnout) = 124mm
• Total: ~620mm (layout allows small overhang for board edge buffer)
• Siding:
• Branch from turnout: 62mm (or longer, depending on available space)
• Buffer at end (62mm)
• Curve optional depending on shape/orientation

Notes

• If you want to save a few cm, replace one of the 248mm straights with a 186mm (20-090).
• You can mirror the turnout (use #4 right instead of left) depending on siding direction.
• Power routing can be done via Kato 24-818 feeder track (substitute one straight if needed).
• A small engine and 1-2 wagons would suit this micro-layout.

This is very helpful, and although I will probably use the list of track as a starting point, I expect that my final layout will be somewaht different.

My first ever wargame article

I happened to be looking through my file of clippings when I came across a copy of the first ever wargame article that I wrote. It was published in issue No. 175 of the WARGAMER'S NEWSLETTER in October 1976, and was entitled BATTLE REPORT: THE BATTLE OF TAIPING ... and was a battle report about solo wargame set during the Sino-Japanese War.

I have reproduced this article below.

---

BATTLE REPORT

The Battle of Taiping

Preamble: This battle came about as a result of reading several books about the Sino-Japanese War. I possess a small Japanese Army based upon the Fujmi Japanese Infantry set and a First World War British Army suitable for use as Chinese Army units, and therefore set up the following battle. It was fought solo using my own rules which are based upon ideas by Featherstone, Sandars, Wise, and Grant. I also tried out a new idea of my own regarding major tactical decisions to remove bias in my decisions. When a major tactical decision had to be made, I wrote down 6 alternatives courses of action. I then threw a die and the number on the die was the course of action chosen.

Scenario: Several small Japanese units have been fired upon, and the local Japanese commander has decided to take punitive action against Chinese units in and around the village of Hanlow. In order to do this he has sent the following forces to Taiping, just north of Hanlow -

• 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Infantry Coys.
• A Mortar section.
• A Machine gun section.
• 3 Infantry guns.

The Chinese forces in and around Hanlow are as follows -

• A, B, C, D, E and F Infantry Coys camped in the village.
• An artillery battery (3 18pdrs) by the line of trees to the east of the village.
• Sentries are at the railway bridge over the river and at the railway crossing.

Terrain: The terrain is a flat plain split be a railway embankment, which has paddy-fields to the north and south of it. A river (the River Tai) runs from north-east to south-west across the north-west corner of the plain.

The Battle: During the night, the 1st Japanese Company advance along the east bank of the river, whilst the 2nd and 3rd Companies, with the M.G. and Mortar sections moved towards the railway embankment along the Hanlow-Taiping road. The Chinese sentries were more alert than expected and were able to give a warning before being killed. The Japanese forces at the railway embankment now spead out along it, with the M.G. and Mortar sections sited to cover the road from Hanlow. The 1st Company continued its advance along the river bank after leaving a small force to cover the railway bridge.

The Chinese commander, on hearing the sentries' warnings, immediately alerted his men and dispatched A and B Companies towards the railway embankment, along the road. The Japanese held their fire until the Chinese were almost upon them, and then opened fire with all available weapons (rifles, light and heavy machine guns, 'knee' mortars, and 81mm mortars). The Chinese, who were becoming more and more visible in the growing light of dawn, now retreated to the paddy-fields after suffering heavy casualties.

In the meantime the 1st Company advanced further along the river bank and began to move into the southernmost paddy-fields. The Chinese C, D, E and F Companies now deployed towards those same paddy-fields, although unaware of the Japanese presence there. The Chinese battery opened fire on the embankment from their gun line near the trees, but only caused a few casualties on the well spread out Japanese forces there. They did, however, alert the Japanese commander to their presence, and he moved his infantry guns forward and formed a gun line to the rear of the embankment.

Using the paddy-fields as cover, A and B Companies had begun firing upon the embankment to cover the other companies as they advanced on the bridge. However, these four companies blundered into the Japanese 1st Company as it was deploying in the next field. The Japanese company commander did not hesitate in his actions and charged the Chinese, who, although superior in numbers, were shocked by the sudden appearance of the enemy on their flank. In the ensuing melee both sides suffered casualties but the ferocity of the Japanese attack had its desired effect, and the Chinese retreated towards Hanlow. The Japanese company commander, realising that the Chinese were only temporarily demoralised, and that he was considerably outnumbered, withdrew towards the river in order to make good an escape back to his own lines.

The Japanese infantry guns had, by now, moved into position and begun firing upon the Chinese gun line, who were still trying (in vain) to dislodge the Japanese on the embankment. The Japanese guns were, however, very effective, and within short time, had caused several casualties amongst the Chinese gunners. The Chinese now switched their attention to counter-battery fire, but without any observation their fire remained ineffective and wide of the target.

The Chinese commander now reviewed his situation. His artillery was not being very successful (especially in view of mounting casualties to the gunners) and although A and B Companies were in contact with the enemy, C, D, E and F Companies wee shaken after the skirmish in the paddy-fields He was also aware of a Japanese force on his flank (although unaware that this force was, in fact, retreating). He therefore decided that withdrawal was the best course he could take, and issued orders to the artillery to cease fire and move southwards with C, D, E and F Companies. He also ordered A and B Companies to slowly withdraw southward to cover the retreat. The Japanese 2nd and 3rd Companies , seeing this retreat, began to advance down the Hanlow-Taiping road, but were checked by A and B Companies long enough for the main Chinese force to withdraw, although the infantry guns were able to inflict some casualties upon the retreating force. When the Chinese finally withdrew off the battlefield the Japanese advanced and occupied Hanlow.

Conclusions and observations: The Japanese attack was not as successful as it should have been. The main advance down the Hanlow-Taiping road stalled as soon as the sentries alerted the main Chinese force. The flank attack also failed in its main purpose because of the size of the attacking force.

The Chinese counter-attack failed for two main reasons. Firstly the artillery support was bad as lack of observation made it impossible to adjust ranges, etc. Secondly the lack of reconnaissance by C, D, E and F Companies when advancing towards the railway bridge across the paddy-fields.

The battle was very enjoyable, and the new idea I tried out with regard to major tactical decisions worked quite well. An example of how well it did work is in the reaction of the main Japanese force when the Chinese sentries managed to give the alarm. I gave the commander the following 6 alternatives and then threw the die -

1. Withdraw to Taiping.
2. Leave a company to guard the crossing and send the rest of the troops towards the river.
3. Leave a company to guard the crossing and advance wit the remainder.
4. Stay put and defend the embankment.
5. Continue the advance.
6. Using the embankment as cover move the entire force toward the river.

The die score was 4 and this was the course of action which was followed.

By using such a system it is possible to have forces reacting to situations without bias on the part of the solo player, as long as he keeps the alternative options reasonable. I am going to use this system again in solo games as I found that it made this one more enjoyable than my usual games have been. If you are a solo player you might like to try it. Please do - you might find that it works as well for you as it did for me!

---

This was the first of several articles that I submitted to the WARGAMER'S NEWSLETTER and when the latter ceased publication, it directly led to an invitation from the late Dr Paddy Griffith to attend the famous Moor Park 'New Directions in Wargaming' Conference (the first ever Conference of Wargamers or COW). By the end of that conference I had suggested the name of the new organisation we created (WARGAME DEVELOPMENTS) and become the Treasurer and Memberships Secretary ... a role that I still perform some forty-five years later!

The Spanish Civil War and Woolwich

This morning, I have been invited to give a talk to the Monday Get Together group at Shrewsbury House, our local community centre. The group is made up of mainly retired people, and it has a varied programme of events that include historical talks, yoga, exercise for those with mobility problems, meeting with local councillors, financial and legal advice etc.

My talk is entitled THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR AND WOOLWICH and is split into two parts ... mainly to enable the audience to have a comfort and coffee break in the middle of the ninety-minute session.

The first half of the talks covers:

• The rise and fall of the Spanish Empire.
• A 'new' empire in Morocco and the creation of the Army of Africa.
• Five myths about the Spanish Civil War.
• The immediate causes of the Spanish Civil War.
• The leaders of the coup.
• Getting Franco to Morocco.
• A brief history of the war.

The second half of the talks covers:

• Woolwich in 1936.
• Milk for Spain and the roles played by the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society.
• Children's homes for refugees and the Basque children's colony in Abbey Wood.
• Save Democratic Spain.
• People associated with Woolwich and their role in the Spanish Civil War:
• Jim Ruskin.
• Jock Mckissock.
• Kenneth Bond.
• Brian Griffin.
• Phillip Hunter.
• Captain Hugh Pollard.

If the talk – which is accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation – goes well. I may well turn it into a couple of YouTube videos.

The Budget Model Railways Challenge: Acquiring a floating shelf

On Saturday afternoon, Sue and I went to the branch of B&M (Bargains and More) in Dartford, Kent … and I managed to buy two 60cm x 23.5cm floating shelves.

They cost me £5.00 each (they were priced at £10.00 each but were being sold at half price) , and I chose a pair that had a concrete finish. (I could have had high gloss white or black shelves, but the concrete looked more neutral in colour).

The next stage is to get some track out and play around with some possible layouts. After that, who knows where this challenge will take me!