The First World War

[Blackgate]

Christian Wolmar in his book "Engines of War" gives the Quintinshill disaster as one of three similar: the second being at Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne in the French Alps in 1917. Rather than being caused by any fault of the railway personnel it was the military who insisted that a heavy train of nineteen carriages only three of which had air brakes should proceed down a 1 in 30 grade with only one locomotive rather than the two regulations required, the driver being threatened with immediate imprisonment if he refused to take the train. The inevitable happened; the single locomotive could not control the train and the brakes failed; the runaway train derailed on a bridge and the coaches plunged over into the gorge. The final death toll was reckoned to be 675. The third and worst happened in Romania again in 1917; after the Romanians had entered the War on the side of the Entente they were quickly invaded by the Central Powers and despite Russian help were defeated, with the result that an overloaded train of twenty-six carriages evacuating wounded Russian soldiers as well as civilians trying to escape the invading enemy found itself going down a gradient of 1 in 40 out of control. The resulting crash and fire gave a death toll which is still not precisely known but is thought to have exceeded 1000 lives. The three examples differ in the reasons for each catastrophe but they all have in common the ignoring of the peacetime safety rules due to the War.

[Historian]

Something else that these sad cases show is how important the railway had become as a method of moving men and materials to and from the front, and inevitably, when operating railways under pressure of war, corners were cut, and accidents occurred.

The importance of railways to the British army was reflected by the establishment in 1915 of the Railway Operating Division, under the wing of the Royal Engineers, to recruit railwaymen and supply equipment to operate railways at the front.

Locomotives and rolling stock were requisitioned from most of the British railway companies, but eventually it was realised that the adoption of a standardised design would pay benefits in efficiency and ease of maintenance, and the Great Central Railway's '8K' class 2-8-0 heavy freight locomotive was adopted as a standard- Over 500 of these were built for the ROD by several British locomotive works between 1917 and 1919.

Post-war, many of these were sold to several British railway companies, as well as railway operators overseas- some going as far afield as Australia and China. Some would go to war a second time in WW2, although more modern designs, the LMS Stanier 8F 2-8-0 and the War Department 'Austerity' 2-8-0 were adopted as the standardised design for large-scale manufacture in WW2.

8K/ROD engines lasted until almost the end of steam on British Railways, the last being withdrawn in 1966, but some of those exported lasted considerably longer- The last of about a dozen sold to Australian mining company J&A Brown in 1925-27 remained in service until 1973, and a couple sold to China apparently survived until the early 80s

One of the original GCR engines, BR no 63601, is preserved as part of the National Railway Museum collection, currently on loan to the Great Central Railway preservation project in Leicestershire, while three of the ex-ROD engines sold to J&A Brown survive in Australia.



Some of the locomotives requisitioned for military service in France during WW1 also survive in preservation- these include the North British Railway Class C 0-6-0 No 673 'Maude'...



and the Great Western Railway '4300'-class 2-6-0, No 5322. 5322 has recently been operated by it's owners the Great Western Society at Didcot in World War 1 ROD khaki colours. When it was being restored to WW1 condition, the discovery was made that some odd non-standard cutouts and clips underneath the cab roof turned out to be a perfect fit for a .303 Lee Enfield- in ROD service, the driver and fireman obviously needed somewhere to store their rifles while working on the footplate...

[onehourplus]

As a young boy I remember my great-uncle George, who had been an American WWI foot-soldier. He told of being ordered to keep watch over a few captive German soldiers out in the field. One of them came to him and said "Ich muss scheissen" (I have to crap). George directed him over behind a clump of bushes. After awhile it occurred to George that he had effectively given the prisoner leave to run away, but in fact, the fellow eventually returned. Apparently, for German soldiers at that point in the war, it was more important to eat regular meals than to escape.

My dad was a lad of six in the agrarian South of the US when WWI ended. Without telephones or even the telegraph to pass the news, he recalled that the church bells were rung in a rolling wave across the countryside to announce the war's end.

[Trintron]

I spent the better part of the summer watching a number of Youtube documentaries and a dedicated Youtube channel about WW1, the truth be told, this was a war that really did not need to be fought. When you look at the facts, the monarchs of Europe could have ignored their military advisers and stopped everything from happening and given diplomacy a chance.

It's a real shame things turned out the way they did...

The Youtube channel is called The Great War, it's really good.

[palo5]

I agree, a complete generation was betrayed and wasted

The Austrians were very stupid reacting like they did, but the most stupid of all were the English who turned it into a World War. They should have stayed out

On the other hand, at least all the European Empires were finished, although it took another generation and an even worse World War to complete the process

[Ennath]

Not all the European empires. The Soviets established quite an empire in Europe.

[palo5]

It wasn't an Empire. There was political control of some countries for a couple of decades, but there was no colonization and huge ripoff of natural resources in the way European Empires did it

[haroldeye]

Yes, of course there wasn't Palo. Just joy and light spread to all the peoples who had the pleasure of living under Tsar (Romanov or Marxist).

[palo5]

I understand why some didn't like it, but Stalin had a reason. Russia and USSR had been attacked and/or invaded around 40 times in the last 200 years, almost always from the West. That's why buffers were needed in the West

It worked for a few decades. But today you can see how right he was about the creepy West -- they're right on Russia's borders with their troops. Where does it go from here? I hope those self-righteous nutcases don't do anything ultra-stupid

[haroldeye]

Palo - Russia under the Tsars played European politics along with everybody else. Russia and Britain had very little to fall out about, indeed as a major supplier of naval stores (tar pine masts, turpentine) Russia should have been a vital friend to us. Britains enemies (the France of both Louis and Napolean) knew this and were very keen to cause trouble between Tsar and Brit. The Armed Neutrality of the North may have been neutral but it's effect on the Royal Navy was a as good as an act of war and from the British point of view had to be dealt with. France proved a very poor friend of the Tsar.

Before 1939/40 Stalin acted in a logical manner in terms of foreign policy and taking land. The war with Finland was all about real estate vital for the defence of Leningrad. The 1939 Ribbentrop/Molotov pact, however, was not logical, just a land grab of the fine old style and a good excuse to get rid of as many stroppy Poles as possible. Moreover if Stalin hadn't have got rid of all those in Intelligence who had dared to say what he didn't want to hear he just might have put himself in a better position to deal with the Nazis when the turned on him.

In 1945 the Americans were still more interested in destroying the British Empire than the USSR. It was only the actions of Stalin in Poland, Czechloslovakia, Hungary et al that convinced them that the Sovs might be more of a threat to their hegemony than the Brits.

To come to the end of the Soviets. It is my personal view that the West failed the peoples of Russia. Britain took several hundred years to develop a system of government that worked and worked very well (though sadly in recent years it has proved to be rather creaky) and yet we failed to give the nascent Russian state any help. No small wonder that the people to eventually take control would be either the brighter side of the former communists or the cleaner side of the astute high level crooks, erm sorry businessmen, that were making the most of the opportunities presented. I'm not sure which one Putin is but I suspect the latter.

A treaty was made that made the Ukraine a buffer zone. The West and Russia agreed to respect it's position. The EU (not NATO) eventually started making overtures to the Ukraine which Russia didn't appreciate but really the EU is more effective on it's members than being able to do anything to others. Russian intervention in Ukraines internal problems was bound to bring a response. The Crimea which was part of Tartarstan not Russia raised Western hackles by the way the ballot was held. If Putin had said a referendum organised by an independant commission agreed by the UN he would have legitimacy instead the West saw footage of polling booths with Soldiers standing outside. Very intimidating. Likewise what is happening in Eastern Ukraine at the moment, on the balance of probabilities Putin looks as guilty as a puppy next to a pile of pooh. One would think that the greatest coup available to Putin would be an open investigation into who downed that Malaysian airliner, after all he says it was the Ukrainians and that proven would turn everyone against the Ukrainian government. Instead he blocks such an investigation.

Yes I too hope those self righteous nutcases don't do anything ultra stupid because the only people to profit will be those people to the South and East. And they will not be anywhere near as reasonable as that dear Mr Beria.