User:PEA-2292/My sandbox: Difference between revisions

From FIBIwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
PEA-2292 (talk | contribs)
9,628 edits
No edit summary
PEA-2292 (talk | contribs)
9,628 edits
Blanked the page
Tag: Blanking
 
(442 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Jubbulpore Gun Carriage Factory Monorail'''


The ordinance factory at [[Jubbulpore]] opened in 1904. Two different monorail systems were used during the construction of the site in 1901-02 in order to evaluate the ‘Calliet’ and the ‘Ewing’ monorail systems
<ref name =darvill>“Industrial Railways and Locomotives of India and South Asia” compliled by Simon Darvill. Published by ‘The Industrial Railway Society’ 2013. ISBN 978 1 901556 82-7. Available at  http://irsshop.co.uk/India. Reference:  Entry  IA18  page ....</ref>.
The ‘Calliet’ system consisted of 10 miles(16km) of Calliet rail with six tip trucks, one log bogie and a platform truck to aid the construction of the Factory. The ‘Ewing’ system was from the the [[Great Indian Peninsula Railway]](GIPR) goods yard to the factory site, a distance of 2 miles(3.2km). The lines was operated using hand labour. As a consequence, the rates of cartage fell as competition to them increased but at peak times bullock carts were still used. On site the line divided one to storage area for incoming goods and one to the work area carrying rock and earth for levelling the site <ref name=Memo1903> British Library  IOR/ L/MIL/7/14846  “Collection 335/13 Report on monorail tramway at Jubbulpore.”; Memorandum 11114; 1903</ref>.
In addition to the monorails, another 4 miles(6.4km) of narrow gauge([[Rail_gauge#Narrow_Gauge|NG]]) tramway, of unknown gauge, was to be laid to the brick works but this was abandoned <ref name=Memo1903/>.
The workers did not like the Caillet system wagons and found them difficult to handle. Trained operators were required and at least one bad accident occurred. The engineers found that a monorail was useful in these circumstances as it was quick and cheap to lay using unskilled labour. It would work with reasonably sharp curves and the rails did not have to be perfectly laid. There was minimum disruption to other road users <ref name=Memo1903/>.
The findings on the two systems were <ref name=Memo1903/>: -
The ‘Caillet’ Trucks
<br>These were easier to control down slopes, but required trained labour and were wearisome to the pullers and therefore could be dangerous. They also found the same difficulties as experienced by the engineers at the [[Kundale Valley Light Railway| Kanan Davan Monorail]] . To change the type of motive power required rebuilding the connection frame and could not be formed into trains.
The ‘Ewing’ Trucks
<br>These were easier to use especially by untrained labour and could be joined together quickly. They found that the traction was heavier as a consequence and the large road wheel meant that loading could only be done from one side. These trucks hand not been used in the levelling works and it was doubtful how they would have performed on uneven ground.
The result of the trial, showed that the ‘Ewing’ system was the best and more trucks would have been ordered but the main line sidings had reached the factory. Major Edgell felt that a two-line light railway would have been best but the monorail was very flexible <ref name=Memo1903/>.
The records also show that broad gauge([[Rail_gauge#Broad_Gauge|BG]]) locomotives were allocated to the site from 1903 onwards, these would have connected to the [[GIPR]] sidings at [[Jubbulpore]]  <ref name =darvill/>.
== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Railways]]
[[Category:Monorail]]
[[Category:Industrial Railways]]

Latest revision as of 17:57, 30 December 2020

Retrieved from "https://wiki.fibis.org/index.php?title=User:PEA-2292/My_sandbox&oldid=85085"