Ironclad Importing Iron

[atlantis]

Did the CS navy dept. ever consider or attempt to import iron to armor their ironclads. Given all the demands on local production would it not have expedited construction by having it shipped directly to harbors like Mobile, Charleston.

 

[georgew]

Did the CS navy dept. ever consider or attempt to import iron to armor their ironclads. Given all the demands on local production would it not have expedited construction by having it shipped directly to harbors like Mobile, Charleston.

Yes. At one point there is correspondence from the Confederate agent at either Bermuda or the Bahamas stating that about 200 tons of plate had arrived from Britain for transshipment. About 1862 there seems to have been a dispute over what type(s) of iron to bring in. The RR companies wanted a priority for T-rail so they could expand their lines or do maintenance by trading out the more worn segments. Their argument was that the worn T-rail could be used for reinforcing bunkers or shipped to rolling mills for conversion at Richmond or Atlanta. The Navy preferred pre-rolled iron, possibly pre-drilled. Just my opinion, but I don't think it was actually a problem to secure either type of iron. The problem was who would transport it. Iron was a bulk commodity and the Confederate treasury was loathe to allow a bounty on iron used for government purposes. The mark-up was very high on civilian goods and more profitable. The Confederate government then tried a double approach. They passed a law that a fixed percentage of a cargo had to be reserved for government orders. The other method was the lease or purchase of runners for government cargoes with the vessel commanded by a Naval Officer. In the case of shipping in iron plate or T-rail the loading sequence of the runner's cargo was critical. You wanted the heavy materials at the bottom of the hold for stability reasons. I've always wondered why they didn't ship either type of iron to a neutral transshipment port and give a stipend for the runners to load the iron in smaller batches as ballast. When the ship was unloaded, the ballast weight could be replaced with sandbags for the run out. But even if you did run the iron in there is the problem of distribution to the limited number of yards and foundries/rolling mills. I don't think I'm alone in believing they would have been better off bringing in T-rail early in the war. Actual combat results indicated that reversed T-rail, especially if stabilized with concrete or metal shavings in the gaps, was highly resistant to medium weight ordnance. It was also easier to replace. And there was no political issue in its purchase or shipment versus plate which common sense would label a war commodity. Oddly enough, the real problem with T-rail was that of having equipment to cut it to size and fasteners (bolts, nuts). You would have to mandate a fixed size of fastener and holes (if the rail was ordered pre-drilled).

 

[Carronade]

Good post, and no, you're not alone in thinking they would have been better off bringing in rail and railroad material

 

[Pollaco]

Good post, and no, you're not alone in thinking they would have been better off bringing in rail and railroad material

I also agree with alot the above replys particularly georgew's , the Confederacy shot themselves in the foot by not importing T-rails earlier.I'm not sure if that "shot to the foot"is the right terminology but they screwed up.

 

[DaveBrt]

Well, I would normally agree that the Confederacy should have supported the railroads by importing T-rails. But a little math is in order. If a runner carried rails as ballast, there would be maybe 50 tons per trip? That would be enough rail for 1/2 mile, both sides. The number of rails needed to construct just the Piedmont RR would have required some 100 round trips to bring in enough rails as ballast. Such huge amounts of iron were needed (400 tons per ironclad is a fair estimate) that nothing but a normal level of trade could have provided what was needed. The blockade prevented that level of trade and captured the sailing schooners (the type that carried most of the rail to the South before the war).

I think the rail ballast would have been nice, but the amount of weight needed of all kinds of war materials means that something useful would not have been imported if the rail had.

The South's sources of rail during the war was: the B&O RR, abandoned Union railroads, and Confederate railroads. They had too much war left when the iron ran out.

 

[georgew]

Good points Dave. But I believe that the trend during the war was to go to shorter, more compact casemates with fewer, heavier guns. They were ironing heavier as Federal artillery production ramped up with heavier guns. I suspect that a ballast scheme would run 25 to 50 tons per vessel/run. But with some type of incentive based upon tonnage, the commercial types might well carry it as it should not have reduced their cargo space by much. I take your point re the pre-war use of schooners to bring in rail, but I suspect that such a system would be based upon steamers. The one area which needs a bit more research is Texas. Lt. Carter, senior CSN at Shreveport sent one of his officers to Texas to double check where and how much rail was available. The first check was done by Constructor Meads who told Carter there was very little rail available in Texas. But the second officer reported just the opposite. Unfortunately his written communication with Carter does not specify quantity. It is ironic that a rail link with Louisiana and Brashear was under construction just prior to the war and stores of rail imported to close the gap. Maintenance to the existing line from Houston to the Sabine river had apparently been marginal before the war and Confederate District commanders put a limit on the amount of traffic over the existing system, apparently because of maintenance issues. Whether this was a consequence of a manpower shortage or replacement rail is unclear. The issue of "hardening" or tin-cladding Confederate steamers in Texas waters was apparently never seriously considered. They went with cotton-cladding and at Galveston had stripped much of the cladding off the steamers to use as product to keep the runners supplied. Another irony involves the line between Shreveport and the Texas border. They had the rails, but no engines, pulling railcars with oxen.

 

[rebelatsea]

There is a practical difficulty with carrying rail as ballast. When you unload it something equally weighty has to replace it to keep the vessel stable at sea. Stone in one form or another was often used in sailing days, with ships dumping it overboard often if there was no market at their destination. This practice had to be forbidden in the Thames estuary, as it was causing navigation problems. The dredger often bring it up to this day. I'm sure that's not the only example.

 

[DaveBrt]

Another irony involves the line between Shreveport and the Texas border. They had the rails, but no engines, pulling railcars with oxen.

The two roads involved were the Vicksburg, Shreveport & Texas and the Southern Pacific. From what I have found, they were a few miles short of a connection, but they did have four locomotives and about 30 cars. If you have anything I have not posted, please let me know.

 

[georgew]

There is a practical difficulty with carrying rail as ballast. When you unload it something equally weighty has to replace it to keep the vessel stable at sea. Stone in one form or another was often used in sailing days, with ships dumping it overboard often if there was no market at their destination. This practice had to be forbidden in the Thames estuary, as it was causing navigation problems. The dredger often bring it up to this day. I'm sure that's not the only example.

So as you unload you replace weight with sandbags?

 

[georgew]

The two roads involved were the Vicksburg, Shreveport & Texas and the Southern Pacific. From what I have found, they were a few miles short of a connection, but they did have four locomotives and about 30 cars. If you have anything I have not posted, please let me know.

Hi Dave - when you say "they" do you mean both lines had engines or one unconnected line had all four engines? There were at least flat cars on the Shreveport side. Surely if they had engines they would use them - even if having to modify the grates for the fireboxes for wood?

 

[DaveBrt]

Hi Dave - when you say "they" do you mean both lines had engines or one unconnected line had all four engines? There were at least flat cars on the Shreveport side. Surely if they had engines they would use them - even if having to modify the grates for the fireboxes for wood?

The SP had 3 locomotives and 7 cars. The VS&T had 1 locomotive at Shreveport, serving the five miles going west of town. The entire company had about 60 cars, but I do not know how many were in Shreveport.

All Texas and Louisiana locomotives used wood for fuel.

 

[bradford011]

The Confederate Railway system was a mess. The Confederacy did not construct one new locomotive during the war and only refurbished a few. When Sherman's troops heated up the rails and twisted them around trees the rails now could not just be put back as before but had to go to a foundry to be melted down and re-rolled, a task beyond their already overtaxed resources.

Iron is heavy and bulky so I can understand the difficuilities in getting it shipped in. For that much weight I'd rather have heavy guns that Confederate foundries couldn't cast or better yet new and powerful engines to propel the ironclads under construction.

 

[Carronade]

For all the effort and ingenuity that went into it, the Confederate ironclad program was basically a waste. As several of us have noted, the amount of material which could be expected to get through the blockade was limited, which made it critical to focus on those items which, considered dispassionately, would make the greatest contribution to the war effort. Anything would have been better than investing in ironclads which would inevitably be outnumbered and outclassed by the forces the Union could bring to bear at any given port or waterway.

 

[georgew]

The SP had 3 locomotives and 7 cars. The VS&T had 1 locomotive at Shreveport, serving the five miles going west of town. The entire company had about 60 cars, but I do not know how many were in Shreveport.

All Texas and Louisiana locomotives used wood for fuel.

Dave do you have any information on whether the engine at Shreveport was operational for the whole period of the war? I keep wondering about why anyone would haul a railcar with oxen if you have a functional engine.

 

[georgew]

Well, I would normally agree that the Confederacy should have supported the railroads by importing T-rails. But a little math is in order. If a runner carried rails as ballast, there would be maybe 50 tons per trip? That would be enough rail for 1/2 mile, both sides. The number of rails needed to construct just the Piedmont RR would have required some 100 round trips to bring in enough rails as ballast. Such huge amounts of iron were needed (400 tons per ironclad is a fair estimate) that nothing but a normal level of trade could have provided what was needed. The blockade prevented that level of trade and captured the sailing schooners (the type that carried most of the rail to the South before the war).

I think the rail ballast would have been nice, but the amount of weight needed of all kinds of war materials means that something useful would not have been imported if the rail had.

The South's sources of rail during the war was: the B&O RR, abandoned Union railroads, and Confederate railroads. They had too much war left when the iron ran out.

Dave, do you have any estimates on the rates at which T-rail wore out requiring replacement? As for cannibalization of existing lines I believe this was the fate of a new pre-war line running south to Pensacola. Would you say that 1.5 linear miles of rail (both) would be about 150 tons? I ask this because when the first three RDS boats of the northern squadron went up river, two of the boats had not completed their ironing. They found none at Memphis and stopped on the Arkansas side at the river terminus of what was intended to be a rail short cut inland. The purser of one of the boats claimed that they had pulled up a long distance of rail. The RDS boats were reported to have used strip iron at Algiers for ironing which makes me wonder whether the Arkansas short line (a project started in the early 1850's) was using strip iron or T-rail? If T-rail is what they removed, then we have to rethink a bit on how heavily some of those boats upriver may have been at least partially ironed. I'm specifically thinking of Van Dorn for one. Bragg apparently had her protection for engines and boilers complete, but no armament when she went up.

 

[DaveBrt]

Dave, do you have any estimates on the rates at which T-rail wore out requiring replacement? As for cannibalization of existing lines I believe this was the fate of a new pre-war line running south to Pensacola. Would you say that 1.5 linear miles of rail (both) would be about 150 tons? I ask this because when the first three RDS boats of the northern squadron went up river, two of the boats had not completed their ironing. They found none at Memphis and stopped on the Arkansas side at the river terminus of what was intended to be a rail short cut inland. The purser of one of the boats claimed that they had pulled up a long distance of rail. The RDS boats were reported to have used strip iron at Algiers for ironing which makes me wonder whether the Arkansas short line (a project started in the early 1850's) was using strip iron or T-rail? If T-rail is what they removed, then we have to rethink a bit on how heavily some of those boats upriver may have been at least partially ironed. I'm specifically thinking of Van Dorn for one. Bragg apparently had her protection for engines and boilers complete, but no armament when she went up.

The Arkansas road was the Mississippi, Ouachita & Red River RR and, while I do not know the rail weight, I doubt anyone was starting a new railroad with strap iron in the mid-1850's.

The life of iron T-rail depended on the number of ties used, the type of connection with the next rail, the weight of the trains, the frequency of the trains and the speed of the trains. Roughly, they lasted 10 years.

Normal CW T-rail rule of thumb is 100 tons of iron for 1 mile (a little high, but good enough for an estimate)

 

[DaveBrt]

Dave do you have any information on whether the engine at Shreveport was operational for the whole period of the war? I keep wondering about why anyone would haul a railcar with oxen if you have a functional engine.

Everything I have is on my site. The Ben Johnson was leased to the SP in September 1862 and returned at the end of the war. In between????

 

[rebelatsea]

So as you unload you replace weight with sandbags?

Not bags but bulk sand and or shingle was often used packed in so that it didn't shift en-voyage. That is what has caused problems in the Thames estuary. over the years it piled up into banks, which move with the tides. Dredging is used now as we have huge container vessels coming up to Tilbury and Thames Port. The results are being used for land reclamation.