View allAll Photos Tagged profitable
When it ceased operations in 1880 the Potteries, Shrewsbury and North Wales Railway (the ’Potts’)* left a mess. Over the next thirty years, its prolonged death throes left a scattering of, mostly derelict, railways, unused formations, unused construction powers and an inheritance of uncertain user rights over a large swath of border country stretching from Shrewsbury to the Berwyn Mountains. As a latecomer in this saga Holman F Stephens was able for a time to produce a useful, and for 20 years profitable, railway from much of the old track by the creation of the Shropshire and Montgomeryshire Light Railway (SMR). Nevertheless, the major traffic sources at the western end were to be denied him by the machinations of the much larger, if usually impecunious, Cambrian Railways.
Starting from Shrewsbury, the SMR followed the old Potts formation designed for express connection to Wales. This led through deeply rural countryside and when the new line opened in September 1911 it ended at the apparently inconspicuous and remote country junction of Llanymynech on the Cambrian Railways’ Oswestry to Welshpool line. This station and the village from which it was named was in fact a prosperous place of 1000 souls and was only six miles from the larger market and engineering town of Oswestry. West of Llanymynech station and the Cambrian line was an area rich in stone, lime and minerals that had been a principal destination of the Ellesmere (later Shropshire Union) Canal promoted in the late 18th century.
So how was it that Stephens never managed to tap this traffic source and the SMR had to make do with the pittance that a junction with the Cambrian Railways offered? Well, it was not for want of trying, but the depths of the mess left by the old Potts and the combative attitude of the Cambrian Railways simply defeated the smaller and weaker railway.
When built, the Potts had an interchange station at Llanymynech and then crossed the main Oswestry to Welshpool line of the Cambrian by a double junction with, for reasons unknown, an additional single connection also in the south-westerly direction. The old main line then proceeded towards the Tanat Valley and the mountains, throwing off a branch to large quarries at Nantmawr owned by the Lilleshall Coal and Iron Co. This short (three mile) extension probably generated more traffic than the whole of the rest of the railway, and in fact was to remain open after all other railways in the area were closed.
Reopening Attempts by the Shropshire Railways
Uniquely amongst British railways the Potts main line then lay derelict awaiting its re-awakening by Stephens. In 1888 another company, the Shropshire Railways, had obtained take-over powers. These included reciprocal running powers with the Cambrian to balance the powers that the company had to run to Shrewsbury and enabled the smaller company to reach Oswestry. This attempt to resurrect the line failed as they ran out of money before they could do anything useful.
The Cambrian had meanwhile exploited the weakness of the Shropshire to consolidate its hold on the area. Anxious to improve its access from Llanymynech Station to its Llanfyllyn Branch (which had to be reached by a back shunt east of Llanymynech to pass over the Ellesmere Canal) and to secure the Nantmawr Quarry traffic it made some astute moves. In 1894 it negotiated full running rights on the Nantmawr Branch to a new junction, authorised by the Shropshire Railways Act 1891, with its Llanfyllyn Branch. It then signalled and interlocked the Nantmawr part of Llanymynech’s double junction for its own use. Further in 1895/6 despite opposition in writing from Ullmer, the Shropshire’s secretary, Aslett, the Cambrian manager, citing Board of Trade requirements, severed the original Potts junction line and rebuilt Llanymynech station platforms over it. To add insult to injury the Cambrian also built their junction signal box on Shropshire Railways land.
In the mid to late 1890s, the Tanat Valley Light Railway (independent but soon to be worked and later absorbed by the Cambrian) had been formed to supplant the old Potts’ and Shropshire Railways 1891 lapsed powers to build a line up the Tanat Valley. But, with the active participation of its solicitor Joseph Parry-Jones (who was quite co-incidentally Oswestry's town clerk and a little later the Cambrian’s Solicitor) and a substantial bribe of free running powers over the Cambrian into Oswestry, it had decided by 1898 not to use the line to Llanymynech. Instead it was to thrust east to join an older Cambrian mineral line (at Porthywaen) giving a direct railway to Oswestry.
This caused an unholy and prolonged row with Shropshire Railways. Viscount Newport (later to be Lord Bradford, a Shropshire Railways director and later one of Stephens's founding co-directors on the SMR) had, as a local landowner, tried to block the Tanat’s Porthywaen connection in favour of the earlier line. In this, he was assisted by that company’s solicitor, F C Matthews, later to be a long time associate of Stephens and indeed co-contractor in the SMR rebuilding. These men realised that mineral traffic was essential to Shropshire Railways' revival for, as Matthews told the Cambrian, it would ‘take out the eye’ of the concern. In protracted and disputatious negotiations they caused the Tanat to join the Nantmawr line. It did this for a short distance at Llanyblodwell (renamed Blodwell Junction) station with an east facing junction, using it for only a few yards and then leaving to join the Porthywaen line. Their pressure also ensured that a direct west-facing junction (known contemporaneously as Lord Bradford’s loop) was authorised.
The Coming of the Shropshire and Montgomeryshire
Into this devil’s cauldron of conflicting rights stepped Stephens with the SMR. In its Light Railway Order, this railway was authorised to reconstruct and operate Shropshire Railways and thus acquired most of the rights, including running powers, of that company although this continued to own the track bed etc and had a legal existence and financial structure. After an initial and unsuccessful attempt to interest the essentially hostile LNWR and GWR in jointly running the authorised line, Stephens was forced to adopt his customary independence. With characteristic energy, he rebuilt the SMR with new sleepers (brought in via Aberdovey Harbour and the Cambrian) and stock, and re-opened it to Llanymynech in March 1911. Although already in a dispute over running trains further west he cheerfully refurbished the double junction installed during the railway's dark ages. An open and clubbable character Stephens was, in Matthew’s stated judgement, someone who did not excel as a negotiator, and in late 1911 he belatedly wrote to the Cambrian in an almost naive fashion to discuss in particular running powers:
1 over the Tanat Valley Light Railway;
2 to Nantmawr;
3 to Oswestry via Blodwell Junction;
4 for goods to Ellesmere and interchange with the Great Central Railway. (Stephens had earlier written to the Cambrian in connection with the Light Railway Order ‘In view of the fact that you have running powers over 18 miles of our line and in return …we have only 6 [over yours] we are of the opinion that we [should have more]’).
Well, the Cambrian didn’t mind the occasional market or even regular passenger trains to Oswestry but they were not going to allow anyone else access to the lucrative Nantmawr Quarries or the Tanat Valley, let alone let Stephens’ trains run further.
The Cambrian losing out in the negotiations over Lord Bradford’s loop had then ensured that it was not built. Furious though this made the good Lord he had only been able to secure in its place, as a temporary two year measure, a through coach connection from Llanymynech to the Tanat Valley- Oswestry trains at Blodwell Junction. Provided by the Cambrian one coach trundled, thrice, later twice, daily, on the back of the local goods. Year-on-year they stalled so as not to build the loop to enable a direct connection into the Tanat. Consequently, the service carried very little traffic and it was eventually to peter out in wartime conditions in January 1917. In all this, the Cambrian had proved thoroughly obstructive to the Shropshire interest and
now proceeded to do all in its power to bottle up the infant SMR. They used in particular their formal and informal agreements with the Shropshire to suggest that as they had running rights on the Nantmawr branch no one else (the SMR) could have as well.
After characteristically pithy Stephens’ correspondence with the Chairman and General Managers of the Cambrian, there were over the next few years prolonged discussions and disputes. These culminated in legal cases that finally went to the High Court. Desperate to protect the £2000 (£125K in 2004 values) they were pulling in each year for the short haul involved the Cambrian, was, by this time deliberately stalling to disadvantage the weaker company. It changed its stance by arguing that running powers could only be exercised over the original junction that they had unilaterally removed! To bring matters to a head Stephens, on behalf of the Shropshire companies gave notice on 19th June 1913 that he wished to work 1 goods and 2 passenger trains over the Nantmawr line and on 7th July served formal legal notice that such services would be implemented.
Sixty years earlier railway politics conducted like this had several times ended with trains trying to force the junction only to be blocked by locomotives chained to the rails. Unfortunately for our entertainment but continuingly fortunate for lawyers' pockets matters had progressed to less physical methods. Not surprisingly, given the specific provisions of the LRO and the Cambrian’s high-handed unilateral decision in 1895 to remove the original junction, the SMR finally won in court, on appeal, on 27 October 1913.
Had David finally slain Goliath? Regrettably not. As we know the SMR never terminated its passenger services in Oswestry nor got its happy ending tapping the lucrative mineral traffic opened up by its progenitors. The Cambrian's Counsel after its High Court defeat had written to W Kendrick Minshall (the Company’s Solicitor) ‘…keep them [the SMR] busy over something else’. This Machiavellian approach seems to have worked. At one stage they even stooped to informing the Earl of Powis, a powerful force in the Welsh Borders, one of their directors and a debenture holder in the SMR, of likely irregularities in SMR reporting of Debenture interest. An honourable man, he seems to have taken no action.
Agreement?
Earlier in 1913 in an attempt to end the dispute to forestall more legal costs the SMR had appointed, with Cambrian acquiescence, a special negotiator. This was Sir Charles Owens, the recently retired General Manager of the LSWR, a director of that company and a debenture holder in the SMR. Stephens was obviously by now disgusted at the whole thing and told the Cambrian directly in early 1916 that he was leaving it to Owens. The court case had concentrated minds but the Cambrian still dragged it out and War came. Eventually, on 19th December 1916, a formal agreement was drawn up by Sir Charles and agreed. This provided, amongst other things
1 The Cambrian, regardless of whether Nantmawr quarry traffic went via Porthywaen or Llanymynech, would pay tolls to the Shropshire.
2 Lord Bradford’s Loop need not be built but access would be provided to the Tanat
3 If traffic from the Lilleshall company to its works at Hollinswood (near Wellington) was consigned via the SMR then the Cambrian would receive a sum equal to the rate it would have received [for Nantmawr-Oswestry] out of the through rate paid. [This effectively reduced the SMR's take, probably to unremunerative levels, and the Cambrian knew that the GWR would also be obstructive, as they too would be losers]
4 The Cambrian could keep its signal box and other structures on Shropshire land at Llanymynech and would remove the fence and move the shelter obstructing SMR passengers’ access to its station platforms [This was carried out and completed on 20th April 1917]
5 The Cambrian would render correct accounts and pay dues promptly (a bone of contention for at least 30 years)
As can be seen this agreement was of little or no direct benefit to the SMR/Shropshire interests. However given Cambrian attitudes, Sir Charles Owens was unable to negotiate more. At least it bought some peace and reduced legal fees.
With the railways under wartime controls none of this counted anyway.
Hostilities Resumed
The Cambrian continued in general to be unremittingly hostile. The SMR did not help when in 1919 it attempted to gain an outlet to Potteries markets and the friendly North Staffordshire Railway with its resurrected Market Drayton extension, a move that directly threatened Cambrian traffics.
At this point, Stephens renewed his attempts to open the Llanymynech bottleneck and more pithy correspondence and meetings ensued. He sought access to the quarries, a resumption of the mixed service to Llanyblodwell, and a through coach from Oswestry to Shrewsbury (later modified to Ford!). The Cambrian dragged matters out and Stephens, infuriated, threatened to try again the 1913 tactic of presenting a train from the quarry for passage over the SMR , serving notice to that effect on 27 November 1920. Forestalled, he wrote a fierce letter to Williamson, the Cambrian General Manager, on 21st December which ended;
“Hope you have a merry Christmas, and that your conscience will be clear, and that the ghost of the starving Shropshire and Montgomeryshire Company will not haunt your, troubled, Christmas sleep”
The whole of 1921 was devoted to arguing about the S&MR's rights to receive Nantmawr traffic including, again serving notice on of their intention to run on the branch in 6 months from 17th May 1921. In private, the LNWR, one of the partners in the traffic, showed signs of agreeing with Stephens, but the Great Western and Cambrian had no qualms and suppressed this split. Meanwhile, the Cambrian threw in every delaying tactic from quoting spurious rates to submitting unduly high costs for reinstatement of facilities for through traffic-despite the fact that they were all in place and in use- to simply refusing to meet or reply to letters. This tactic worked, the Cambrian amalgamated with the Great Western on 25 March 1922 and S&MR's case became hopeless as virtually the whole route of Lilleshall's traffic was now in that company’s hands. And anyway the GWR, unlike the Southern that was run by many of Stephens’ friends, was by inclination hostile to any surviving small company in its territory.
Llanymynech became literally and metaphorically the end of the line. With precious little to gain financially, thanks to the 1916 agreement, the SMR gave up on quarry traffic and after a few more years passenger traffic gave up on them. The Llanymynech –Blodwell Junction line was finally closed as a through route in 1925.
Nantmawr quarry traffic, one of the principal movers in the Potts, Shropshire and SMR promotions continued to enrich others until traffic finally ceased in 1971. The line was mothballed until finally closed in 1992, the last of the railway lines in the area.
*First promoted as the West Midlands, Shrewsbury and Coast of Wales heading for the chimaera of an Irish packet port on the Lleyn Peninsular. This failed but the more modest West Shropshire Mineral railway was then promoted as a line to connect the Nantmawr and Criggion area quarries to the Welshpool - Shrewsbury line. This in turn rapidly evolved through amendment and amalgamation into the modest potential mainline of the Potteries, Shrewsbury and North Wales, a line from Market Drayton via Shrewsbury and the Berwyns. It nearly became a creature of the Great Northern Railway, no less, during that railway’s great competitive expansionist period. At this early stage, the Potts was very friendly with the Cambrian and its predecessors. This changed when the Cambrian got its hands on the Quarry traffic.
Sources
Cambrian Records at the Public Record Office, in particular RAIL 1057/1922.1924-27, 1928 and 741.
The Tanat Valley, W J Wren, D&C, 1968
Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain Volume11 North & Mid-Wales, P E Baughan, D&C, 1980
Washington, DC USA January 27, 2007
Beyond Oral Sex: The Bush Investigations
By David Swanson and Jonathan Schwarz
TomDispatch.com
Thursday 01 February 2007
The last time Congress was controlled by the party in opposition to the White House, we all learned more than we cared to know about the uses of cigars. This time the need for investigations is much more serious. The Democrats are talking fast and furious about doing them, but they're not talking about doing the right ones - and a month into their tenure, they've barely discovered where the bathrooms are.
As humorist Bob Harris enjoys saying about the Bush administration, "It's like a new Watergate every day with these people." Congress could probably spend three decades profitably examining the last six years of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, they'll have to do severe triage to select the areas of malfeasance where investigations will most benefit the country.
A recent ABC/Washington Post poll showed that the public (despite very little help from ABC News or the Washington Post) has it right. A majority picked the "should" option in response to both of these questions:
"Do you think Congress should or should not hold hearings on how the Bush administration handled pre-war intelligence, war planning, and related issues in the war in Iraq?"
"Do you think Congress should or should not hold hearings on how the Bush administration has handled surveillance, treatment of prisoners and related issues in the U.S. campaign against terrorism?"
Meanwhile, back in Washington, Congress is gearing up to investigate whether Halliburton might have cheated on its contracts a little. Hello?
Of course we need to investigate the war profiteers. But our top priority has to be the fraud that launched the war to begin with. Most readers of this article know it was fraud, but a third of the country still doesn't and won't until it's on their televisions for several days in a row. And unless there is accountability for it, the next president may feel free to lie us into a war of his or her choosing. In fact, unless there is enough exposure and accountability, the current war may never end.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller has pledged to finish a long-stalled investigation focused on the 2002-03 campaign for the invasion. However, it's unclear how deeply he'll dig, or what he'll do if the Bush administration simply refuses to cooperate.
In the House, the office of Intelligence Committee Chair Silvestre Reyes says he doesn't plan to investigate the misuse of intelligence on Iraq. In fact, staffers in his and other House offices say a decision was made by the party leadership and/or committee chairs not to "look backwards." (Some members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus we spoke to this week were unaware of this, assumed Reyes would do the investigation, and said they would file Resolutions of Inquiry if he does not.)
The Democrats also appear hesitant to use their subpoena power in the investigations they do plan. Some offices have told us they hope to uncover the truth without having to use subpoenas and that they see this as desirable. Others have said that subpoenas are frowned on because of the need for comity.
When we heard this, we thought the staffer to whom we were talking had said "comedy" - and in fact that might have been more appropriate. During the Clinton administration, of course, comity and collegiality were nowhere to be found, and Republican subpoenas rolled up Pennsylvania Avenue piled on flatbed trucks. (The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee alone issued over a thousand.)
Hopefully this Democratic reluctance is feigned for PR purposes, and they understand that there's no possible way they'll get the necessary information out of the Bush administration by asking nicely. In any case, they may have motivations beyond a wish to keep things friendly. If they issue subpoenas and the administration refuses to comply on the grounds of executive privilege, they'll have to file a lawsuit or back down. And if they file a lawsuit, there's no guarantee they'll win, particularly given the increasing conservative nature of the judiciary. This would be the worst of both worlds: They wouldn't get the information, and they would have established a precedent condoning executive secrecy.
But if this is their view, then they may be surrendering before the fight begins. Congress can win any battle with the executive branch as long as it has an informed public opinion behind it. And that's where we come in - progressives need to teach politicians that they'll be rewarded for doing the right thing and conducting these investigations.
War Lies
Incredibly enough, four years after it happened there has been no genuine investigation of the farrago of propaganda used to sell the Iraq war.
Republicans have done their best to confuse the issue, claiming that it has, in fact, been investigated and the Bush administration has been exonerated. Nope. Indeed, until today the issue has been almost completely stonewalled. Here's how it's worked:
At first, the Bush administration tried to prevent any investigation at all. When no WMD turned up in Iraq by summer 2003 that became politically impossible. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) - chaired by Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas - then promised they'd look into it. But the terms of the investigation were limited to the quality of intelligence produced by the CIA and the rest of the Intelligence Community. Crucially, there was to be no examination of the main issue: whether the Bush administration had presented the intelligence honestly to Congress and the public.
Then, in early 2004, David Kay (who ran the CIA's Iraq Survey Group sent in search of Saddam's stores of WMD) resigned, telling Congress that "we were almost all wrong" about Iraq's supposed arsenal. This forced Roberts to accept a "Phase II" to the committee's investigation. It was slated to examine many subjects; most important, "whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information."
At the same time, Bush was forced to appoint what came to be known as the "WMD Commission." However, as the commission later stated, the President "did not authorize us to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence they received from the Intelligence Community on Iraq's weapons programs."
In June 2004, four months before the Presidential election, the SSCI released its Phase I report. It laid blame for the whole debacle at the feet of the intelligence agencies, insisting that they hadn't been pressured by the administration. When the WMD Commission report came out in March 2005, Roberts said he intended to drop Phase II because "we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence" - and, in any case, further investigation was useless "in a post-election environment."
Resistance from some Democrats forced Roberts to backtrack and officially recommit himself to Phase II. But to date, despite the release last year of reports on several of the less contentious aspects of the Phase II study, the stonewall has held: There has been nothing at all on how the Bush administration made its case for war. (According to a recent interview with Sen. Jay Rockefeller [D-WV], the pressure on Roberts came directly from Dick Cheney.)
The question today is: What do Democrats intend to do about this now that they control both houses of Congress? It's unclear whether the Democratic leadership has a thought-out strategy. Rockefeller has vowed the Intelligence Committee, which he now chairs, will finish the Phase II investigation by this summer. He's also indicated a willingness to use his subpoena power if necessary.
Nevertheless, the administration will strongly resist a serious inquiry - and D.C. media mandarins will sneer at any such attempt by the Democrats. The Washington Post columnist David Broder has already learnedly explained, based on no evidence whatsoever, that "the public's moved past" the pre-war lies. Others, like Gloria Borger of U.S. News & World Report and CBS, have barely been able to stifle their yawns at the idea of an actual investigation. The worst outcome would be a limp completion of the Phase II report, after which the subject would be declared closed once and for all. The best outcome would be a serious, coordinated investigation by the House and Senate of the whole stinking mess.
If the Democrats take the second path, there are literally hundreds of basic questions Congress has never asked. For instance:
What was the Bush administration's thinking on Iraq before 9/11?
In 2004, investigative reporter Russ Baker spoke to Bush family friend and author Marty Herskowitz. Based on lengthy conversations he had taped with Bush for a planned ghosted biography, he claimed then-Governor Bush "was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999." According to Herskowitz, the perspective of people around Bush was that wars were useful politically and that presidents should: "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade." It certainly would be something to see Herskowitz testify on this under oath in front of a congressional committee.
Then there's Paul O'Neill's account of National Security Council (NSC) meetings when he was Treasury Secretary. According to O'Neill, Bush's first National Security Council meeting on January 30, 2001 focused on Iraq - and, at this meeting, CIA Director George Tenet said the Agency's intelligence was so poor "we'd be going in there blind." At a February 1, 2001 meeting, participants were given a document entitled "Political-Military Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: "[W]hat we really want to think about is going after Saddam...Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that's aligned with U.S. interests."
According to O'Neill, Tenet told the President on May 16, 2001, "[I]t was still only speculation whether Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or was starting any weapons-building programs." Videotapes and/or detailed transcripts of these NSC meetings certainly exist, and there's no reason Americans shouldn't see them (except, of course, for the certain constitutional crisis the administration would provoke to prevent that from happening).
Moreover, all this jibes with what senior policymakers were saying at the time. On February 24, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated publicly: "Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." And on July 29, 2001 Condoleezza Rice told CNN: "...Let's remember that [Saddam's] country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." What intelligence were these statements based on?
Was the Intelligence Community Pressured?
According to the SSCI Phase I report and the WMD Commission, the CIA and other agencies came to their conclusions of their own remarkably free will. To create this narrative, however, the reports had to overlook some glaring contradictions.
For instance, two books - James Bamford's A Pretext for War and Lindsay Moran's Blowing My Cover - describe what seems to be the same incident in which an anonymous CIA source claims administration pressure on the Agency "was blatant." The source reported that his or her boss told a group of fifty analysts that "if Bush wants to go to war, it's your job to give him a reason to do so." Neither Bamford, nor Moran was contacted for the previous investigations.
Meanwhile, an anonymous former CIA agent has filed a lawsuit against the Agency, claiming he'd been punished for providing unwelcome intelligence on Iraq. Or at least it appears to be Iraq - much of the complaint has been redacted. The complaint states that the plaintiff "served as primary collection point for Near Eastern WMD programs." According to New York Times reporting on the suit, the agent says he was told by an informant in 2001 that Iraq had abandoned its nuclear-weapons program years before. After complaining that this (and other information) was ignored, he was made the subject of a counterintelligence investigation. Nothing about this appears in the Phase I or WMD Commission report.
Did the Administration Plan to Create a False Pretext for War?
According to Hubris by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Bush authorized a covert CIA program for Iraq in February 2002. Among other things, it included a scheme to "stage a phony incident that could be used to start a war. A small group of Iraqi exiles would be flown into Iraq by helicopter to seize an isolated military base near the Saudi border. They then would take to the airwaves and announce a coup was under way. If Saddam responded by flying troops south, his aircraft would be shot down by U.S. fighter planes patrolling the no-fly zones established by UN edict after the first Persian Gulf War. A clash of this sort could be used to initiate a full-scale war." Needless to say, Congress has never investigated this.
Likewise, we know from a leaked British memo that Bush was talking about other possible pretexts in early 2003. In the memo's language, Bush told Blair, "The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours... If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach" of U.N. resolutions requiring Iraq's cooperation with the ongoing weapons inspections.
And this barely scratches the surface. Why did the Bush administration lie about Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Hussein Kamel, who told the U.S. in 1995 that Iraq had no remaining banned weapons or programs? Why did Secretary of State Colin Powell fabricate parts of intercepted statements by Iraqis in his UN presentation that proved so crucial to the coming invasion? Why did Powell blatantly ignore what he was being told by the State Department's intelligence staff? What happened to the CIA's secret pre-war interviews with thirty Iraqi WMD scientists, all of whom claimed Iraq was clean of weapons of mass destruction or programs to produce them? All this and much more would be examined by any serious investigation. Here are a few of the documents that might be subpoenaed:
* the complete October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq;
* the records of National Security Council meetings on Jan. 30, Feb. 1, and March 16, 2001;
* the records of Cheney's spring 2001 meetings with top oil executives for his Energy Task Force;
* the CIA's Senior Executive Memorandum of January 12, 2002 on Hussein Kamel;
* the records of Bush's late July 2002 budget discussions on Iraq with Legislative Affairs Assistant Nicholas Calio;
* the records of the July 20, 2002, U.S.-U.K. intelligence conference at CIA headquarters, the basis for the Downing Street Memo statement that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy";
* the October 2002, one-page NIE summary that (according to journalist Murray Waas) told the White House of doubts that the infamous aluminum tubes were, in fact, part of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program;
* the January 2003 National Intelligence Council memo that (as reported by the Washington Post) declared the purported Niger-Iraq-yellowcake connection was "baseless and should be laid to rest";
* the records of CIA plans to create a pretext for war: DB/Anabasis, authorized by Bush on February 16, 2002;
* the U.S. records of the January 31, 2003 Bush-Blair meeting at the White House;
* the British records of early 2003 conversations between British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Colin Powell, described by Philippe Sands in his book Lawless World, plus any records from the U.S. side;
* the complaint filed by a CIA agent in Doe v. Goss claiming he'd been punished for providing unwelcome intelligence;
* the records of the White House Iraq Group, established in August 2002 to market the future invasion to the American public;
* the August 2004 memo showing Bush may have proposed bombing al Jazeera.
The committees to focus on to get this done are the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (chaired by Rep. Silvestre Reyes [TX] and Sen. Rockefeller [WV], respectively); House and Senate Armed Services (Rep. Ike Skelton [MO] and Carl Levin [MI]); and House Oversight and Government Reform (Henry Waxman [CA]).
War Corruption
When it comes to investigating fraud and corruption during the war, the obvious place to start is with the numerous no-bid contracts awarded to politically-connected corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel. Henry Waxman's Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be launching hearings on this next week. Three less obvious but equally important areas to investigate are:
1. Where did the money come from to begin secret preparations for the invasion of Iraq?
Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack contains a largely overlooked bombshell: In the summer of 2002, Bush took money appropriated by Congress for Afghanistan and other programs and - with no Congressional notification - used it to upgrade Kuwaiti airfields and create a new "distribution capability" of pipelines so the invasion force would have fuel available while sitting close to the Iraqi border. This was a blatant violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution ("No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law"). It was certainly an impeachable offense (if anyone cares). According to Woodward, the amount was $700 million; the Congressional Research Service (CRS) later corrected that figure, raising it to $2.5 billion. CRS, however, ruefully noted that it "could not obtain details on this spending."
2. Who decided to build permanent military bases in Iraq? When did they make that decision? What was their thinking behind doing so? And how is it that they are still being built despite the fact that Congress prohibited further spending on them?
In October 2006, both houses of Congress passed a bill with an amendment forbidding the use of funds to continue building permanent bases in Iraq. However, according to the most recent reporting (in the American Prospect), the Army continues to construct four huge super bases in different regions of Iraq, with "absolutely no public scrutiny." Since the administration hasn't told them otherwise, the Pentagon plans to occupy the bases indefinitely and is building an extensive communication system to link them to each other as well as to bases in Qatar and Afghanistan. When were these bases first approved? Why are they still being built illegally?
3. Is the Bush Administration trying to privatize Iraq's oil for the benefit of U.S. and British corporations?
The Mideast oil industry, including Iraq's, underwent a wave of nationalizations in the 1970s. But behind the scenes the Bush administration has been shepherding towards passage a new law that appears to return Iraq's oil to its pre-1972 status, when it was essentially controlled by companies such as Shell, Mobil, Standard Oil, and British Petroleum.
With that law expected to go before the Iraqi parliament in March, Congress urgently needs to investigate questions such as: How have the Bush administration and U.S. corporations influenced the restructuring of Iraq's oil industry? To what degree has the influence worked directly to the benefit of U.S. corporations? What are the likely outcomes of the draft law for the Iraqi economy and economic development?
The committees to focus on for investigations of war corruption are House Oversight and Government Reform (chaired by Rep. Waxman); House and Senate Appropriations (Rep. David Obey [WI] and Sen. Robert Byrd [WV]); House and Senate Armed Services (Rep. Skelton and Sen. Levin); and House and Senate Judiciary (Rep. Conyers [MI] and Sen. Patrick Leahy [VT]).
War Crimes
Beyond the lies and manipulations that took us to war, and the corruption that has dominated the war, there is a third broad area that needs to be investigated - but much of which won't be without serious public pressure on Congress. This is the area of war crimes: the targeting of civilians, hospitals, ambulances, and journalists; the use of illegal weapons; the detentions, extraordinary renditions, abuse, torture, ghost prisoners, the setting up of a global network of secret CIA prisons, and murder.
Investigations into extraordinary rendition and torture - in Iraq and elsewhere - will likely be led by Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy has already indicated he's willing to do what's necessary to investigate these issues, including subpoenaing administration records. In particular Leahy plans to procure a 2002 memo written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which is believed to list approved interrogation techniques. It's unclear what Leahy will do if the administration simply refuses his committee's subpoenas.
It's even less clear who, if anyone, will push for investigations into war crimes committed in Iraq. The Bush administration has been concerned since 9/11 that administration officials might be at risk of prosecution under the 1996 U.S. War Crimes Act-which enumerated sentences including the death penalty for U.S. officials who violate the Geneva Conventions. An early 2002 memo by then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales therefore recommended that Bush take steps to preempt any possible prosecution by declaring that members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not covered by the Geneva Conventions. The memo also urged Bush to hold open similar "options for future conflicts" in the "war on terrorism." And Bush has done so: His administration stated in 2004 that non-Iraqis captured in Iraq were not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has given the CIA permission to secretly move Iraqi citizens out of the country for interrogation - in what a former senior military attorney has called "conduct that the international community clearly considers in violation of" the Geneva Conventions.
These actions should be investigated by the Judiciary Committees of Congress as part of their examination of rendition and torture. Meanwhile, other possible war crimes - such as the Haditha massacre, the siege of Fallujah, support of Shiite death squads, and the use of depleted uranium could plausibly be investigated by many committees (including Armed Forces, International Relations, and Veterans Affairs), so that if one committee declines to examine what occurred, others may be persuaded to do so.
The committees we need to focus on for getting war-crime investigations underway are House and Senate Judiciary (chaired by Rep. Conyers and Sen. Leahy), House Armed Services (Rep. Skelton and Sen. Levin), House Veterans Affairs (Rep. Bob Filner [CA]), House International Relations (Rep. Tom Lantos [CA]) and Senate Foreign Relations (Sen. Joe Biden [Del]).
All these investigations are badly needed, not just for the sake of accountability but because the truth will end the war. Bush can continue his crusade only because most of the grim reality of Iraq remains in the shadows. Dragging it out into the sunlight is up to us.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
Aeroflot is one of the oldest airlines in the world, tracing its history back to 1923. During the Soviet era, Aeroflot was the Soviet national airline and the largest airline in the world. Following the dissolution of the USSR, the carrier has been transformed from a state-run enterprise into a semi-privatized company which ranked 19th most profitable airline in the world in 2007. Aeroflot is still considered to be the de facto national airline of Russia, being 51%-owned by the Russian Government.
After WWII, Aeroflot's route network had extended to 295,400 kilometers (183,600 mi), and by 1950 it carried 1,603,700 passengers, 151,070 tonnes (333,050,000 lb) of freight and 30,580 tonnes (67,420,000 lb) of mail during the same year. The 20th Communist Party Congress, held in 1956, saw plans for Aeroflot services to be dramatically increased. The airline would see its overall activities increased from its then current levels by 3.8 times, and it was set the target of the carriage of 16,000,000 passengers by 1960. In order to meet these goals, Aeroflot introduced higher capacity turbojet and turbine-prop aircraft on key domestic routes, and on services to Aeroflot destinations abroad.
A major step for Aeroflot occurred on 15 September 1956 when the Tupolev Tu-104 jet airliner entered service on the Moscow-Omsk-Irkutsk route, marking the world's first sustained jet airline service. The airline began international flights with the type on 12 October 1956 with flights from Moscow to Prague. The aircraft placed Aeroflot in an envious position, as airlines in the West had operated throughout the 1950s with large piston-engine aircraft. By 1958 the route network covered 349,200 kilometers (217,000 mi), and the airline carried 8,231,500 passengers, and 445,600 tons of mail and freight, with fifteen percent of all-Union services being operated by jet aircraft.
Aeroflot introduced the Antonov An-10 and Ilyushin Il-18 in 1959, and together with its existing jet aircraft, the airline was able to extend services on modern aircraft to some twenty cities during 1960. The Tupolev Tu-114, then the world's largest airliner, entered service with the Soviet carrier on 24 April 1961 on the Moscow-Khabarovsk route; covering a distance of 6,980 kilometers (4,340 mi) in 8 hours 20 minutes. The expansion of the Aeroflot fleet saw services with modern aircraft being extended to more than forty cities in 1961, with fifty percent of all-Union services being operated by these aircraft. This fleet expansion also saw the number of passengers carried in 1961 skyrocketing to 21,800,000.
Further expansion came in 1962 when various medium and short-haul routes were started and respective aircraft types such as the Tupolev Tu-124, Ilyushin Il-60 and Antonov An-24 entered regular service with Aeroflot. The Tu-124 was a jet airliner, technically an 75% version of the Tu-104, while the An-24 was a lighter twin turboprop aircraft in the class of the Fokker F.27. The Il-60 was the latest addition to the domestic services, falling in between both other types.
Development of the Ilyushin Il-60 dated back to 12 October 1951, when the Soviet Council of Ministers published a specification for a medium-range aircraft carrying 50 to 70 passengers and 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) of cargo on routes up to 2,000 km (1,100 nmi; 1,200 mi) with a cruising speed of about 600 km/h (320 kn; 370 mph). The type was to replace the piston engine Ilyushin Il-14 on domestic routes. The number and type of engines were not specified, but jet or turboprop engines were expected and emphasis was put on ruggedness and ease of operations for operations on rural airstrips with a minimum of infrastructure.
Ilyushin’s OKB-240 responded at first with a scaled-down Il-18 turboprop airliner, somewhat inspired by an idea of Czech manufacturer Avia for a smaller, short-range airliner for the CSA’s Central European routes. This machine had only two engines and overall reduced dimensions, but used many components of the original airliner. But it soon became clear that the Tu-104 with its jet engines had already set higher standards, so that a completely new and more innovative design was started.
Internally known as “Aircraft 60”, the machine introduced some innovations while still being a conservative design. The aircraft was a two turboprop-engine low-wing monoplane with slightly swept (20° at quarter chord) wings, a circular pressurized fuselage and a conventional, yet markedly swept tail (both fin and stabilizer at 45°). The aircraft had two entry doors on the port-side before and after the wing, two overwing emergency exits on each side, and featured a retractable stairway under the rear fuselage so that passengers could directly enter the aircraft from the airfield. An APU was integrated in the rear fuselage, under the fin, for independent operation of the air condition system and starting the engines without external support.
The tricycle landing gear had four wheels fitted on the main leg bogies, which retracted inwards to lie under the fuselage instead of into the engine nacelles. The front wheel also had twin wheels, retracting forward in a well under the cockpit floor, and the aircraft’s low-pressure tires allowed operations even from grass airfields or snowy ground. Another novel feature at the time was the fitting of a weather radar in the nose, a civilian RPSN-2 "Emblema" system, doing away with the typical glazed navigator position of other former Soviet airliner designs. In order to support all-weather operations and ease the pilots’ work, “Aircraft 60” was also outfitted with an automatic approach system, supported by the radar which allowed blind navigation.
Despite vibration and noise problems, experienced with the earlier Il-18 airliner, Ilyushin insisted on turboprop propulsion because it was the more fuel-efficient option. He furthermore expected that no another jet-driven airliner would be politically “allowed” along the Tu-124 short haul airliner, at that time under parallel development.
“Aircraft 60” was powered by a pair of Kuznetsow NK-6K turboprops. This engine was one of several developments after World War II by a team of Russian scientists and deported German engineers under Ferdinand Brandner, which had worked for Junkers previously, evolving from late war German turboprop studies. This the post-war development was based on the wartime Jumo 022 turboprop design that developed 6000 eshp in a 3000 kg engine. The efforts continued with a 5000 ehp engine that weighed in at 1700 kg, completed by 1947, and with further weight savings and more modern materials, the NK-6, one of several development directions, became a large single-spool engine that was optimized for use on board of commercial aircraft like “Aircraft 60”.
For security reasons, the engines were mounted in front and above of the wings’ leading edge. In order to keep the wing structure as clean and simple and possible and not risk collateral damage to the landing gear in case of an engine fire, the landing gear was retracted into wells under the wing roots. This measure also kept the engine nacelle’s dimensions in very compact limits.
In order to minimize noise and vibrations, 2x4-bladed contraprops with an automatic feathering system were mounted, resulting in a characteristic humming noise when the engines were running. Due to the lower speed of these propellers, compared to a standard four- or five-blade propeller, the internal and external noise level could be significantly reduced (compared to the Il-18, which could drone at 110db in the cabin above the wings!), even though the lower frequency caused other problems, mainly vibrations at certain speeds that shook the whole airframe.
The standard seating of the initial version, the Il-60A, was 52 seats at a 90cm distance between the five-seat rows (two seats on port side and three on starboard). Alternatively, a maximum of 72 could be mounted in a cramped “tourist class” configuration with only 78cm distance between the seat rows, which became the late production standard configuration as Il-60B.
The first of two prototypes made its first flight from Zhukovsky airfield on 24 March 1960. The second prototype followed in June 1960. Two other airframes served as a static test cells. Testing was successful, and the aircraft entered production at Machinery Plant No. 30 located at Khodynka, near Moscow, replacing the Il-18 in production. Deliveries to Aeroflot began in August 1962, with the type operating its first scheduled passenger service, between Moscow and Tallinn in Estonia, on 2 October 1962.
The Il-60’s production remained only on a small scale, though: being a pure jet, the Tu-124 was preferred by the Aeroflot for short haul duties, as well as by the Powers That Be. Despite the type’s merits esp. in harsh climate conditions (most Il-60 were allocated to Aeroflot’s feederline services in the Soviet Union’s northern regions), the type was not popular among its crews. While the two turboprops gave sufficient power, had good handling across the whole speed envelope and the aircraft had no trouble remaining airborne with one engine shut down, the asymmetrical drag/thrust in this emergency condition was considerable and navigating the Il-60, and even more landing the aircraft, with only one engine was a challenging task.
Furthermore, the stalky landing gear, which prompted the crews' inofficial nickname "косино́жки" (kosinozhki = daddy longlegs), could start to vibrate under certain conditions and wobble, making a start or landing run a shaky if not dangerous affair, esp. on snow-packed and non-permanent runways. Furthermore, two Il-60 crashed on runways or airfields after hitting obstacles ubnder snow - the long front landing gear collapsed. Nobody on board was seriosuly hurt in both cases, but these accidents did not improve the type's reputation among both pilots and passengers alike.
Only a total of 44 machines were built: 18 Il-60As for selected connections abroad (e. g. to Scandinavia and Poland), plus 26 Il-60Bs with higher seat capacity for purely domestic service. Both machines were identical from the outside, though, and all production aircraft featured a characteristic spinal fin root extension that covered several radio and navigation antennae.
Ilyushin had plans for a stretched version (with two plugs inserted into the fuselage in front of and behind the wings) with a 2.2m longer fuselage and a maximum capacity of 85 passengers, and also worked on a jet-powered update with engine nacelles on pylons under and in front of the wings. But none of these improvements was turned into hardware, since not only the Tu-124 had become the preferred short/medium haul airliner for Aeroflot, the following Tu-134 had also become the political favorite, and OKB-240 focused on its long-range airliner Il-62.
Il-60 production already ended after only two years in 1964, and Aeroflot decommissioned its last twelve Il-60s on 21 January 1980, after more and more structural problems (wing spar cracks, caused by the NK-6’s vibrations) had become apparent and several aircraft had to be grounded.
General characteristics:
Crew: 3 (captain, first officer and a flight engineer),
plus another seat for an optional navigator or a radio officer,
plus a three- or four-person cabin crew
Capacity: 52 – 72
Payload: 8.4 t (9.3 short tons)
Length: 32,54 m (106 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 34.3 m (112 ft 6 in)
Height: 11,74 m (38 ft 5 1/2 in)
Wing area: 146.7 m² (1,579 sq ft)
Empty weight: 22.2 t (24.5 sT)
Max. takeoff weight: 46 t (50.7 sT)
Powerplant:
2× Kusnetzow NK-6K turboprop engines, rated at 3,318 kW (4,612 ehp) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 805 km/h (500 mph/435 knots)
Cruise speed: 665 km/h (424 mph/370 knots)
Range (Typical payload, 2 hr reserve): 2,400 km (1,300 nmi/1,490 mi)
Rate of climb: 2,750 ft/min (14.0 m/s)
Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
The kit and its assembly:
“In Soviet Union, Aeroflot flies you!” And in order to prove this theory, this whiffy airliner is contribution #3 to the “Soviet Group Build” at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017.
It’s been a very long time that I had built a small-scale airliner, but then I found a (crappy!) 1:144 Mistercraft Caravelle III in my stash (actually, a re-boxed kit from a company called “Ruch” from the Sixties!), that I had originally bought just for the wings as a pure donor kit. This appears to be a blunt copy of the also rather vintage Airfix kit, but the latter has much more crisp details. O.K., the Mistercraft kit was cheap – but you have to pay otherwise…
Anyway, anything Soviet without an elegant Aeroflot airliner would not be complete, so I tackled this idea on short notice. The project had also been fueled by another project idea: a modern short-haul airliner like the Tu-204, but outfitted with turboprops instead of turbofan engines. For this idea (and other uses), I also had a conversion set from a Russian company called “Kompakt Mir” stashed away, with four resin 1:144 NK-14 engines. It’s actually as an aftermarket upgrade set for the Trumpeter Tu-95 model kit, but came in handy – and it is excellent stuff, by the way, with crisp detail, almost no flash or sinkholes.
With these ingredients, work went on quickly and straightforward, and wings and fuselage were started separately. The wings (a combined piece with a mutual underside) received fairings for engine nacelles, made basically from drop tank halves glued to the upper wing surface. Then the resin engines were mounted to the fairings’ front ends the gaps and the nacelles’ underside sculpted with 2C putty, plus some later fine-tuning with NC putty. The Caravelle’s inward-retracting landing gear was retained, keeping the engine fairings rather short and compact.
On the fuselage, the Caravelle's original engines and their attachment points disappeared. The triangular windows were drilled open into circular shape, later, as a final finishing step, filled with Humbrol ClearFix for shiny window panes - this improves the overall look a lot.
Lead was added in the nose, the retractable stairway under the rear fuselage kept (a very Soviet design detail!) and the Caravelle’s characteristic round fin tip was cut away, to be replaced with a square scratch transplant. The stabilizers were moved down and their round tips clipped, too.
On the nose, a scratched thimble radome was added and blended into the fuselage, for an Il-18-ish look. While these were rather simple, cosmetic measures on the fuselage, the look of the whole aircraft was changed into a much more modern design!? This was even more emphasized when the wings and stabilizers were added – the Il-60 looks very contemporary, nothing of the Caravelle’s Fifties flavor remains.
The landing gear is new, bashed from the bogies of the recently slashed Dragon 1:144 B-1B bomber I abused for my Fastback build, and leftover struts from an Acedemy 1:144 Tu-22M. The latter also donated a pair of main wheels for the front leg, which is, again, from the B-1B.
The new arrangement is considerably taller than the Caravelle’s, but with the large propellers this is a convenient and plausible arrangement, despite a rather stalky appearance due to the relatively short wheelbase. The eight main wheels were taken from the RUCH kit, even though the attachment point would not fit the B-1 struts at all...
Painting and markings:
One can argue about Soviet aircraft design or reliability – but I must admit that I liked the Aeroflot aircraft liveries since I can remember them as a child, sometimes even witnessing Tupolev or Yak jets at the local airport. The white-and-blue outfit with almost baroque trim and details was and is IMHO a very elegant design, worthy of a state airline (which had a menacing, if not mysterious Big Brother image during the Cold War times in which I grew up).
Another interesting fact is that, despite the basic colors were set, each Aeroflot type bore a typical and different paint scheme, plus some exotic designs like the polar service machines with lots of red added.
Consequently, I had a lot of freedom, and work was made even more easy through the Mistercraft Caravelle kit: it actually contains markings for a Caravelle in Aeroflot markings! “Nonsense!”, you might say – but this aircraft actually existed: it was a movie prop (actually Air France’s F-BJTR) for filming “Enigma” at Le Bourget Airport in 1981 (check this for reference: www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflot-%28Air-France%29/Sud-SE-...). As a side note, there was another Caravelle in fictional Interflug or ČSA colors, too, as well as a camouflaged SMB2 Super Mystère and a NMF Mystère IV with red stars on white discs, both playing the role of Soviet MiG-19s!
Anyway, the OOB decal sheet offered enough material for my plans, even though the blue trim was created from generic decal sheet. But door decals and most Aeroflot markings came from the movie aircraft.
Painting was also a pretty straightforward affair: the fuselage was painted white with acrylic paint from the rattle can, the lower fuselage by brush with Polished Aluminum Metallizer from Humbrol (which creates a very bright and clean finish) on top of a Revell Acrylics Aluminum primer coat.
For some contrast to the white and blue I painted the fixed wing parts with light grey, the rudders in Aluminum and Steel, and orange wing and stabilizer tips were added as small, additional contrasts, later even highlighted with dayglow orange.
In order to add some weirdness to the look, the propeller blades were painted bright blue with yellow tips. Unusual, but a common Soviet/Russian/Chinese practice.
A rather simple conversion, but highly effective. The Caravelle’s traces are almost not to be identified anymore, even though fuselage and wings consist of OOB material with only superficial modifications or re-locations. The engines on the wings change the look, too, and despite being massive NK-12’s they are a good match for the compact airliner – I am very happy with the outcome, even though the overall lines look much more modern than late Fifties design – even though no more modern parts were actually integrated? Weird, but entertaining. J
Chennai Central, erstwhile Madras Central, is the main railway terminus in the city of Chennai, formerly known as Madras. It lies adjacent to the current headquarters of the Southern Railway, as well as the Ripon Building, and is one of the most important railway hubs in South India. The other major railway hub stations in the city are Chennai Egmore and Tambaram. Chennai Central connects the city to New Delhi and prominent cities of India such as Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Coimbatore, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mumbai, Patna, Varanasi, Thiruvananthapuram, Visakhapatnam and so forth. The 142-year-old building of the railway station, one of the most prominent landmarks of Chennai, was designed by architect George Harding. Along with Chennai Beach, the station is also a main hub for the Chennai Suburban Railway system.
Chennai Central serves as a symbolic landmark for people in South India as this station served as the main gateway for all people who travelled to South India during the British times. About 350,000 passengers use the terminus every day. Chennai Egmore, Coimbatore Junction and Chennai Central are the most profitable stations of Southern Railways. As per a report published in 2007 by the Indian Railways, Chennai Central and Secunderabad were awarded 183 points out of a maximum of 300 for cleanliness, the highest in the country.
HISTORY
Marking the initial days of the railways in the Indian Subcontinent, the Madras Railway Company began to network South India in 1856. The first station was built at Royapuram, which remained the main station at that time. Expansion of the Madras Railways network, particularly the completion of the Madras–Vyasarpadi line, called for a second station in Madras, resulting in Madras Central coming into being.
Madras Central was built in 1873 at Parktown as a second terminus to decongest the Royapuram harbour station, which was being utilised for port movements. The station was built on the open grounds that had once been called John Pereira's Gardens, belonging to Joao Pereira de Faria (John Pereira), a Portuguese merchant in the port town of Negapatam (present day Nagapattinam) who settled in Madras in 1660. The garden had a house used by Pereira for rest and recreation. Having fallen into disuse, the garden had become a gaming den, with cock-fighting being the favourite sport at that time, until when the Trinity Chapel was built nearby in 1831 and the Railways moved into the area in the 1870s.
In 1907, Madras Central was made the Madras Railway Company's main station. The station gained prominence after the beach line was extended further south in the same year, and Royapuram was no longer a terminus for Madras. All trains were then terminated at Madras Central instead. The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company was formed in 1908 and took over the Central station from the Madras Railway Company. The station's position was further strengthened after the construction of the headquarters of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway (erstwhile Madras Railway and now known as the Southern Railway) adjacent to it in 1922.
Madras Central was part of South Indian Railway Company during the British rule. The company was established in 1890 and was initially headquartered in Trichinopoly. Egmore Railway Station was made its northern terminus in 1908. It was then shifted to Madurai and later to Madras Central. With the opening of the Egmore Railway Station, plans were first made of linking Madras Central and Egmore, which was later dropped. The company operated a suburban electric train service for Madras city from May 1931 onwards in the Madras Beach-Tambaram section. In 1959, additional changes were made to the station. Electrification of the lines at the station began in 1979, when the section up to Gummidipoondi was electrified on 13 April 1979. The lines up to Tiruvallur were electrified on 29 November 1979 while the tracks along Platforms 1 to 7 were electrified on 29 December 1979.
EXPANSION
In the 1980s, the Southern Railway required land for expansion of the terminus and was looking for the erstwhile Moore Market building located next to the terminus. In 1985, when the market building caught fire and was destroyed, the structure was transferred to the Railways by the government, and the Railways built a 13-storied complex to house the suburban terminus and railway reservation counter. The land in front of the building was made into a car park. Following the renaming of the city of Madras in 1996, the station became known as Chennai Central. Due to increasing passenger movement, the main building was extended in 1998 with the addition of a new building on the western side with a similar architecture to the original. After this duplication of the main building, the station had 12 platforms. Capacity at the station was further augmented when the multi-storeyed Moore Market Complex was made a dedicated terminus with three separate platforms for the Chennai Suburban Railway system. In the 1990s, when the IRCTC was formed, modular stalls came up and food plazas were set up.
In 2005, the buildings were painted a light brown colour, but concurring with the views of a campaign by the citizens of Chennai and also to retain the old nostalgic charm, they were repainted in their original brick-red color. The station is the first in India to be placed on the cyber map.
LOCATION
The terminus lies on the southern arm of the diamond junction of Chennai's railway network, where all the lines of the Chennai Suburban Railway meet. The terminus is located about 19 km from Chennai International Airport. The main entrance is located at Park Town at the intersection of the arterial Poonamallee High Road, Pallavan Salai, and Wall Tax Road between the People's Park and the Southern Railways headquarters. The station premises is located on either side of the Buckingham Canal, formerly known as Cochrane's Canal, which separates the main station and the suburban terminus. Wall Tax Road runs alongside the station on the eastern side. There are two other entrances on the eastern and western sides of the complex. The eastern entrance on Wall Tax Road leads to platform no. 1, and the western entrance lies at the entrance of the suburban terminus. The station is connected with the Park railway station and the Government General Hospital, both located across the road, by means of subways. During the building of the Chennai Metro the connection from Chennai Park to Chennai Central is by means of a steel footbridge.
LAYOUT
ARCHITECTURE
Built in the Gothic Revival style, the original station was designed by George Harding and consisted of four platforms and a capacity to accommodate 12-coach trains. It took another five years for the work to be completed, when the station was modified further by Robert Fellowes Chisholm with the addition of the central clock tower, Travancore 'caps' on the main towers, and other changes. The redesign was eventually completed in 1900. The main building, a combination of Gothic and Romanesque styles has been declared as a heritage building. The clock tower with the flagstaff, the tallest of the towers of the main building, has four faces and reaches a height of 136 ft. It is set to chime every quarter of an hour and every hour.
PLATFORMS
Chennai Central station is a terminal station with bay platforms. The average length of railway tracks in the station is 600 metres. The entire complex has 15 platforms to handle long-distance trains with 3 platforms exclusively for suburban trains. The total length of the station is about 950 m. The main building has 12 platforms and handles long distance trains. The complex for suburban trains is popularly known as the Moore Market complex. There is a platform 2A between platforms 2 and 3; it is used to handle relatively short length trains like the Chennai Rajdhani Express, Vijayawada Jan Shatabdi Express, Bangalore/Mysore Shatabdi Express and the Gudur Passenger. The 13-storied annex building, the Moore Market Complex Building, has 3 platforms and handles north- and westbound suburban trains.
Chennai Central used to have trains with special liveries until the early 1990s. The Brindavan Express used to have green livery with a yellow stripe running above and below the windows; Nilgiri Express (popularly known as the Blue Mountain Express) had blue livery. All trains now have the standard blue livery (denoting air-braked bogies). Notable exceptions include the Rajadhani, Shatabdi and the Jan Shatabdi expresses. The Saptagiri/Tirupati Express has a vivid green/cream livery combination with a matching WAM4 6PE loco from Arakkonam (AJJ) electric loco shed.
The Chennai Central Station, unlike many other major railway stations in India, is a terminus. The next station to Chennai Central, Basin Bridge Junction, is the railway junction where three different lines meet.
As of 2015, all platforms except 2A platforms, in the station were able to accommodate trains with 24 coaches. Platform 2A is the shortest of all platforms in the station and can accommodate trains with 18 coaches. Chennai Central is the only station that has a platform numbered 2A. Though it was built actually for delivering water and goods to the station staff, the Shatabdi Express now starts from here.
BRIDGE
Bridge No.7 across the Buckingham Canal connects the terminus with the railway yards and stations to the north. The bridge, measuring 33.02 m in length and carrying six tracks, acts as the gateway to the terminus. The bridge was originally resting on cast iron screw pile. Following the 2001 accident of Mangalore–Chennai express killing 52 passengers, Southern Railway started replacing all bridges resting on screw piles, and the bridge was replaced with a new RCC box bridge resting on well foundation in September 2010, with ancillary works getting completed by March 2011.
TRAFFIC
On an average, 19 trains are operated daily from the station of which 12 have 24 coaches. About 200 trains arrive and depart at the station daily, including about 46 pairs of mail/express trains, in addition to 257 suburban trains handled by the three platforms at the station's suburban terminus. About 400,000 passengers use the terminus every day, in addition to 20,000 visitors accompanying them to see-off or receive them, generating a revenue of ₹6,590,214,293 (US$98 million) as of 2012–2013, making it the top revenue-generating station of the Southern Railway. There is likely to be around 180,000 passengers in the station at a given point.
The terminus also faces traffic problems. Often, express trains and EMU services that arrive at the Basin Bridge Junction in time have to be detained for non-availability of platforms at Chennai Central. Blocking of lines is a daily challenge owing to the traffic.
SERVICES
Chennai Central is a major transit point for shipment of inland and sea fish in South India through trains. The terminus handles fish procured from Kasimedu which is sent to Kerala and sea fish from the West Coast which is brought to Chennai and ferried to West Bengal. As of 2012, on an average, the terminus handles transportation of 200 boxes of fish, each comprising 50 kilograms to 70 kilograms of consumable fish. The station also handles 5,000 postal bags daily.
FACILITIES
The station has bookshops, restaurants, accommodation facilities, Internet browsing centres, and a shopping mall. The main waiting hall can hold up to 1,000 people. In spite of being the most important terminus of the region, the station lacks several facilities such as drinking water facility, a medical unit and coach position display boards. The main concourses too have long exhausted their capacity to handle the increasing passenger crowd. There are passenger operated enquiry terminals and seven touch-screen PNR status machines in the station. The station has three split-flap timing boards, electronic display boards and Plasma TVs that mention train timings and platform number. A passenger information center in the station has been upgraded with "Spot your Train" live train display facility, information kiosks and passenger digital assistance booths. The terminus, however, has only 10 toilets, which is inadequate to its 350,000 passengers.
As of 2008, there were 607 licensed railway porters in Chennai Central. Four-seater battery operated vehicles are available to cater to the needs of the elderly and the physically impaired.
On 26 September 2014, Chennai Central station became the first in the country to get free Wi-Fi connectivity. The facility is being provided by RailTel, a public sector telecom infrastructure provider.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE
In November 2012, a public interest writ petition was filed in the Madras High Court citing the lack of a full-fledged emergency medical care centre at the terminus. Further to this, the Southern Railway invited expression of interest from several hospitals in the city to establish a medical care centre.
On 15 April 2013, a new emergency medical care centre was opened. The centre has three beds, two doctors on duty and another on standby, four nurses, a paramedic team, and a round-the-clock ambulance. The centre is equipped with oxygen cylinders, an ECG, a defibrillator and resuscitation equipment. The terminus is the first railway station in the country to have facilities of an ambulance.
PARKING
The station has parking facilities for more than 1,000 two-wheelers. About 1,000 cars are parked in the standard car park every day. Since March 2008, a premium car park facility for 80 cars in addition to its regular car park is functioning at the station. The cement-concrete-paved premium parking is located between the Moore Market reservation complex and the station's main building. However, the station still faces parking problems. About 3,000 taxis arrives at the station every day.
MAINTENANCE
Chennai Central suffers from lack of enough maintenance crew, which lead to dirty and unhygienic trains. According to the Railway sources, as of July 2012, Chennai Central was 180 short of the sanctioned 405 maintenance employees, including mechanical, electrical and general maintenance, required for cleaning the interiors and exteriors of trains and undertaking routine mechanical and electrical maintenance of trains. Contracts for cleaning the station has been awarded for a period of three years from 2010 for a value of ₹ 43.1 million. In 2007, the number of dustbins in the station was 28.50 per 10,000 passengers.
On average, about 51 train units depart and arrive at the station from different parts of the country everyday. Of the 102 trains, a 12 are sent during the day and another 7 at night to the Basin Bridge Train Care Centre for primary maintenance, which involves complete exterior and interior cleaning and total mechanical and electrical overhaul. The rest of the trains go through secondary maintenance or 'other-end attention' at the depot or 'turn back train attention' at Chennai Central itself. Secondary maintenance includes filling water, while the third is the 'other-end attention', in which the train, especially the toilets, is cleaned. The fourth category of trains, such as Sapthagiri Express and Pallavan Express, are turn-back trains, which arrive and leave in a short time from Chennai Central after toilet-cleaning and water-filling is done right at the terminus platform.
The station has been divided into two zones for mechanised cleaning contracts. As of 2008, Chennai Central had about 30 sanitary workers employed on a contractual basis in Zone I (platforms 1 to 6). Zone II (platforms 7 to 12) was cleaned by close to 40 railway employees.
YARDS AND SHEDS
TRAIN CARE CENTRE
A broad-gauge coach maintenance depot, called the Basin Bridge Train Care Centre, is located at the northern side of the terminus, where trains of 18 to 24 coaches are checked, cleaned and readied for its next trip after they return from round trips. It is the largest train care centre under the Southern Railway where 30 pairs of trains are inspected every day. The yard has 14 pit lines, each 3-ft deep, to inspect undercarriage of trains, but only two lines can accommodate 24-coach trains. The rest are designed to park 18-coach trains. Five to six people are allotted to each train. As of 2012, the centre has 3,500 employees, a shortage of about 400.
Water accumulated in pit lines are let out into the Buckingham Canal by means of drainage channels. However, as the yard is located in a basin area, water does not drain quickly enough. In addition, the centre faces pests and other hygiene issues too.
ELECTRIC TRIP SHED
The terminus has an electric locomotive trip shed, the Basin Bridge electric loco trip shed, located north of the train care centre. It is one of the five loco trip sheds of the Southern Railway. To lessen load on the shed, an additional electric trip shed has been created at Tondiarpet, which also serves as a crew change point for freights.
GOODS SHED
The terminus has a goods shed attached to it at Salt Cotaurs.
RENOVATION
Chennai Central Station gets renovation after 2010, is undertaken by the building division of the Southern Railway with the technical assistance provided by the Chennai circle of Archaeological Survey of India. the work is carried out to ensure the original character of the building is maintained.The Station building has maroon colour since its inception in 1873.
CONNECTIVITY
Chennai Central railway station is a hub for suburban trains. Suburban lines originating from Chennai Central include West North Line, North Line, and West Line. Chennai Park suburban station is in proximity to the station, thus facilitating connectivity to Tambaram/Chengalpet/Tirumalpur routes through South Line and South West Line. Chennai Central can be directly reached from all suburban stations and MRTS stations in and around Chennai (except Washermanpet and Royapuram) either through its own MMC Complex for suburban trains or through the nearby Park suburban station or the Park Town MRTS station. Currently, there is only one direct suburban train that plies from Chennai Beach Junction to Chennai Central via Washermanpet and Royapuram, and hence there is no frequent direct connectivity for these two stations to Chennai Central. The Chennai Park Town MRTS station is close to Chennai Central station.
Chennai Central is connected to the Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus and other parts of the city by buses operated by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, by means of separate bus lanes near the main entrance, close to the concourse. There are prepaid auto and taxi stands at the station premises. However, only 30 autorickshaws are presently attached to the prepaid counter parking, as Chennai Metro Rail has acquired its parking area for station construction.
The terminus is connected to the Park railway station and the Government General Hospital by two subways on either side. The two subways, which are one of the first in the city, are used by thousands of commuters day round. Nevertheless, jaywalking prevails as a substantial number of commuters prefer crossing the road, at times resulting in accidents.
The terminus is connected with the Egmore station, the other most important terminus of the city, by a circuitous and congested route covering a distance of 11.2 km via Chennai Beach. There was initially a proposal to connect the two termini by means of an elevated section with double-line broad-gauge electrified track with two elevated platforms at Chennai Central, at the cost of ₹ 930 million, which would cut the distance to 2.5 km. The project, approved on 8 April 2003 and initially aimed to be completed by 2005, was later scrapped owing to the expected rate of return on the project being only 1 to 2 percent, poor soil conditions on the Poonamallee High Road, and other issues.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The portion of the Buckingham canal running near the terminus and beneath Pallavan Salai is covered for 250 m, which makes the task of maintaining the canal difficult. After being desilted in 1998, the covered stretch of the canal near the terminus was cleaned in September 2012. Garbage is dumped into the canal via the openings near the Chennai Central premises. An estimated 6,000 cubic meters of silt was removed from the 2-m-deep canal.
INCIDENTS
On 14 August 2006, a major fire broke out in Chennai Central station, completely destroying a bookshop.
On 29 April 2009, a suburban EMU train from Chennai Central Suburban terminal was hijacked by an unidentified man, who rammed it into a stationary goods train at the Vyasarpadi Jeeva railway station, 4 kilometres northwest of Chennai Central. 4 passengers were killed and 11 were injured. The train which was scheduled to depart at 5:15 am started at 4:50 am instead. The train was moving with a speed of 92 km per hour with 35 passengers on board at the time of collision.
On 6 August 2012, a man hailing from Nepal perched atop the clock tower of the station's main building, creating a commotion. He was later safely persuaded back down the tower by the City Police and Southern Railway officials.
On 1 May 2014, the station witnessed two low-intensity blasts in two coaches S4 and S5 of the stationary Bangalore-Guwahati express, killing one female passenger and injuring at least fourteen.
SECURITY
In a first of its kind for the railways, a bomb disposal squad of the railway protection force, equipped with state-of-the-art gadgets imported at a cost of over ₹ 2.5 million, was inaugurated at Chennai Central on May 2002. The squad functions round the clock and its personnel were trained at the National Security Guard Training Centre at Maneswar and the Tamil Nadu Commando School. In 2009, following the train accident at the Vyasarpadi Jeeva station, surveillance cameras were installed at the suburban terminus platforms. A security boundary wall 200 m long was erected along platform 14 to check unauthorised persons entering the station. Two security booths were planned, one each at the main terminus and the suburban terminus. A government railway police (GRP) station is located on the first floor at the western end, headed by a DSP and two inspectors.[86]
In 2009, 39 CCTV cameras were installed in the premises along with a control room. In 2012, about 120 CCTV cameras are to be installed in Chennai Central. In April 2012, the GRP and the Railway Protection Force (RPF) together launched a helpline known as Kaakum karangal (literally meaning 'Protecting hands'). This involved dividing the terminus into six sectors and deploying 24 police personnel for security.
On 15 November 2012, Integrated Security System (ISS) was launched at the station, which comprises sub-systems such as CCTV surveillance system with 54 IP-based cameras, under-vehicle scanning system (UVSS) for entries and exits, and personal and X-ray baggage screening system. In addition, explosive detection and disposal squad have been deployed. The sub-system will be integrated by networking and monitored at the centralised control rooms. Existing CCTV network of suburban platforms has also been integrated to this system.
FUTURE
In 2004, a second terminal was planned near the Moore Market Complex, with six platforms to be constructed in the first phase of the project and four platforms each in the second and third phases. For additional infrastructure, the goods yard at Salt Cotaurs will be closed to provide more pit line and stabling line facilities for the new terminal.
In 2007, the Railway Board declared a plan to develop the terminus into a world-class one at a cost of ₹200 million (US$3.0 million), along with two other stations (Thiruvananthapuram Central and Mangalore Central), and a high-level committee was formed in 2009 to expedite the project at a total cost of ₹1,000 million (US$15 million). The plan included creating multi-level platforms where express and suburban trains could arrive and depart from the same complex. However, the project is yet to begin.
An underground metro station of the ongoing Chennai Metro Rail project is under construction at the Chennai Central station. It is one of the two metro stations where Corridor I (Airport–Washermanpet) of the project will intersect with Corridor II (Chennai Central–St. Thomas Mount via Egmore, CMBT). The metro station, being constructed at a depth of 25 metres, will be the largest of all metro stations in the city with an area of over 70,000 square metres. The station will act as a transit point for passengers from the Central, Park Town, and Park railway stations. It is estimated that more than 100,000 commuters will utilise the station daily.
In June 2012, the first skywalk in Chennai connecting Chennai Central, Park Railway Station and Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital was planned at a cost of ₹200 million (US$3.0 million). It will be 1 kilometre long, linking the station with nine points, including Evening Bazaar, Government Medical College and Ripon Buildings on Poonamallee High Road.
In February 2013, as part of a national initiative to eliminate ballast tracks at major stations, washable aprons - ballastless tracks or tracks on a concrete bed - were installed along the entire length of tracks of platforms 3, 4 and 5 at the terminus. Washable aprons that are already present for a few metres in some of the platforms at the terminus will be extended, viz. 30 metres on platform 3, 200 metres on platform 4, and 50 metres on platform 5, while new ones will be built on platforms with ballast tracks.
IN POPULAR CULTURE
Chennai Central railway station is one of the most prominent landmarks in the city that is often featured in movies and other pop culture in the region. The station has been used in numerous Indian novels and film and television productions over the years. Many films and television programs have been filmed at the station, including:
The station has been poetized by Vijay Nambisan in his 1988 award-winning poem 'Madras Central' published in 1989. The poem is regarded as a modern classic.
In 2009, the Department of Posts featured Chennai Central in a postal stamp.
WIKIPEDIA
Chennai Central, erstwhile Madras Central, is the main railway terminus in the city of Chennai, formerly known as Madras. It lies adjacent to the current headquarters of the Southern Railway, as well as the Ripon Building, and is one of the most important railway hubs in South India. The other major railway hub stations in the city are Chennai Egmore and Tambaram. Chennai Central connects the city to New Delhi and prominent cities of India such as Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Coimbatore, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mumbai, Patna, Varanasi, Thiruvananthapuram, Visakhapatnam and so forth. The 142-year-old building of the railway station, one of the most prominent landmarks of Chennai, was designed by architect George Harding. Along with Chennai Beach, the station is also a main hub for the Chennai Suburban Railway system.
Chennai Central serves as a symbolic landmark for people in South India as this station served as the main gateway for all people who travelled to South India during the British times. About 350,000 passengers use the terminus every day. Chennai Egmore, Coimbatore Junction and Chennai Central are the most profitable stations of Southern Railways. As per a report published in 2007 by the Indian Railways, Chennai Central and Secunderabad were awarded 183 points out of a maximum of 300 for cleanliness, the highest in the country.
HISTORY
Marking the initial days of the railways in the Indian Subcontinent, the Madras Railway Company began to network South India in 1856. The first station was built at Royapuram, which remained the main station at that time. Expansion of the Madras Railways network, particularly the completion of the Madras–Vyasarpadi line, called for a second station in Madras, resulting in Madras Central coming into being.
Madras Central was built in 1873 at Parktown as a second terminus to decongest the Royapuram harbour station, which was being utilised for port movements. The station was built on the open grounds that had once been called John Pereira's Gardens, belonging to Joao Pereira de Faria (John Pereira), a Portuguese merchant in the port town of Negapatam (present day Nagapattinam) who settled in Madras in 1660. The garden had a house used by Pereira for rest and recreation. Having fallen into disuse, the garden had become a gaming den, with cock-fighting being the favourite sport at that time, until when the Trinity Chapel was built nearby in 1831 and the Railways moved into the area in the 1870s.
In 1907, Madras Central was made the Madras Railway Company's main station. The station gained prominence after the beach line was extended further south in the same year, and Royapuram was no longer a terminus for Madras. All trains were then terminated at Madras Central instead. The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company was formed in 1908 and took over the Central station from the Madras Railway Company. The station's position was further strengthened after the construction of the headquarters of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway (erstwhile Madras Railway and now known as the Southern Railway) adjacent to it in 1922.
Madras Central was part of South Indian Railway Company during the British rule. The company was established in 1890 and was initially headquartered in Trichinopoly. Egmore Railway Station was made its northern terminus in 1908. It was then shifted to Madurai and later to Madras Central. With the opening of the Egmore Railway Station, plans were first made of linking Madras Central and Egmore, which was later dropped. The company operated a suburban electric train service for Madras city from May 1931 onwards in the Madras Beach-Tambaram section. In 1959, additional changes were made to the station. Electrification of the lines at the station began in 1979, when the section up to Gummidipoondi was electrified on 13 April 1979. The lines up to Tiruvallur were electrified on 29 November 1979 while the tracks along Platforms 1 to 7 were electrified on 29 December 1979.
EXPANSION
In the 1980s, the Southern Railway required land for expansion of the terminus and was looking for the erstwhile Moore Market building located next to the terminus. In 1985, when the market building caught fire and was destroyed, the structure was transferred to the Railways by the government, and the Railways built a 13-storied complex to house the suburban terminus and railway reservation counter. The land in front of the building was made into a car park. Following the renaming of the city of Madras in 1996, the station became known as Chennai Central. Due to increasing passenger movement, the main building was extended in 1998 with the addition of a new building on the western side with a similar architecture to the original. After this duplication of the main building, the station had 12 platforms. Capacity at the station was further augmented when the multi-storeyed Moore Market Complex was made a dedicated terminus with three separate platforms for the Chennai Suburban Railway system. In the 1990s, when the IRCTC was formed, modular stalls came up and food plazas were set up.
In 2005, the buildings were painted a light brown colour, but concurring with the views of a campaign by the citizens of Chennai and also to retain the old nostalgic charm, they were repainted in their original brick-red color. The station is the first in India to be placed on the cyber map.
LOCATION
The terminus lies on the southern arm of the diamond junction of Chennai's railway network, where all the lines of the Chennai Suburban Railway meet. The terminus is located about 19 km from Chennai International Airport. The main entrance is located at Park Town at the intersection of the arterial Poonamallee High Road, Pallavan Salai, and Wall Tax Road between the People's Park and the Southern Railways headquarters. The station premises is located on either side of the Buckingham Canal, formerly known as Cochrane's Canal, which separates the main station and the suburban terminus. Wall Tax Road runs alongside the station on the eastern side. There are two other entrances on the eastern and western sides of the complex. The eastern entrance on Wall Tax Road leads to platform no. 1, and the western entrance lies at the entrance of the suburban terminus. The station is connected with the Park railway station and the Government General Hospital, both located across the road, by means of subways. During the building of the Chennai Metro the connection from Chennai Park to Chennai Central is by means of a steel footbridge.
LAYOUT
ARCHITECTURE
Built in the Gothic Revival style, the original station was designed by George Harding and consisted of four platforms and a capacity to accommodate 12-coach trains. It took another five years for the work to be completed, when the station was modified further by Robert Fellowes Chisholm with the addition of the central clock tower, Travancore 'caps' on the main towers, and other changes. The redesign was eventually completed in 1900. The main building, a combination of Gothic and Romanesque styles has been declared as a heritage building. The clock tower with the flagstaff, the tallest of the towers of the main building, has four faces and reaches a height of 136 ft. It is set to chime every quarter of an hour and every hour.
PLATFORMS
Chennai Central station is a terminal station with bay platforms. The average length of railway tracks in the station is 600 metres. The entire complex has 15 platforms to handle long-distance trains with 3 platforms exclusively for suburban trains. The total length of the station is about 950 m. The main building has 12 platforms and handles long distance trains. The complex for suburban trains is popularly known as the Moore Market complex. There is a platform 2A between platforms 2 and 3; it is used to handle relatively short length trains like the Chennai Rajdhani Express, Vijayawada Jan Shatabdi Express, Bangalore/Mysore Shatabdi Express and the Gudur Passenger. The 13-storied annex building, the Moore Market Complex Building, has 3 platforms and handles north- and westbound suburban trains.
Chennai Central used to have trains with special liveries until the early 1990s. The Brindavan Express used to have green livery with a yellow stripe running above and below the windows; Nilgiri Express (popularly known as the Blue Mountain Express) had blue livery. All trains now have the standard blue livery (denoting air-braked bogies). Notable exceptions include the Rajadhani, Shatabdi and the Jan Shatabdi expresses. The Saptagiri/Tirupati Express has a vivid green/cream livery combination with a matching WAM4 6PE loco from Arakkonam (AJJ) electric loco shed.
The Chennai Central Station, unlike many other major railway stations in India, is a terminus. The next station to Chennai Central, Basin Bridge Junction, is the railway junction where three different lines meet.
As of 2015, all platforms except 2A platforms, in the station were able to accommodate trains with 24 coaches. Platform 2A is the shortest of all platforms in the station and can accommodate trains with 18 coaches. Chennai Central is the only station that has a platform numbered 2A. Though it was built actually for delivering water and goods to the station staff, the Shatabdi Express now starts from here.
BRIDGE
Bridge No.7 across the Buckingham Canal connects the terminus with the railway yards and stations to the north. The bridge, measuring 33.02 m in length and carrying six tracks, acts as the gateway to the terminus. The bridge was originally resting on cast iron screw pile. Following the 2001 accident of Mangalore–Chennai express killing 52 passengers, Southern Railway started replacing all bridges resting on screw piles, and the bridge was replaced with a new RCC box bridge resting on well foundation in September 2010, with ancillary works getting completed by March 2011.
TRAFFIC
On an average, 19 trains are operated daily from the station of which 12 have 24 coaches. About 200 trains arrive and depart at the station daily, including about 46 pairs of mail/express trains, in addition to 257 suburban trains handled by the three platforms at the station's suburban terminus. About 400,000 passengers use the terminus every day, in addition to 20,000 visitors accompanying them to see-off or receive them, generating a revenue of ₹6,590,214,293 (US$98 million) as of 2012–2013, making it the top revenue-generating station of the Southern Railway. There is likely to be around 180,000 passengers in the station at a given point.
The terminus also faces traffic problems. Often, express trains and EMU services that arrive at the Basin Bridge Junction in time have to be detained for non-availability of platforms at Chennai Central. Blocking of lines is a daily challenge owing to the traffic.
SERVICES
Chennai Central is a major transit point for shipment of inland and sea fish in South India through trains. The terminus handles fish procured from Kasimedu which is sent to Kerala and sea fish from the West Coast which is brought to Chennai and ferried to West Bengal. As of 2012, on an average, the terminus handles transportation of 200 boxes of fish, each comprising 50 kilograms to 70 kilograms of consumable fish. The station also handles 5,000 postal bags daily.
FACILITIES
The station has bookshops, restaurants, accommodation facilities, Internet browsing centres, and a shopping mall. The main waiting hall can hold up to 1,000 people. In spite of being the most important terminus of the region, the station lacks several facilities such as drinking water facility, a medical unit and coach position display boards. The main concourses too have long exhausted their capacity to handle the increasing passenger crowd. There are passenger operated enquiry terminals and seven touch-screen PNR status machines in the station. The station has three split-flap timing boards, electronic display boards and Plasma TVs that mention train timings and platform number. A passenger information center in the station has been upgraded with "Spot your Train" live train display facility, information kiosks and passenger digital assistance booths. The terminus, however, has only 10 toilets, which is inadequate to its 350,000 passengers.
As of 2008, there were 607 licensed railway porters in Chennai Central. Four-seater battery operated vehicles are available to cater to the needs of the elderly and the physically impaired.
On 26 September 2014, Chennai Central station became the first in the country to get free Wi-Fi connectivity. The facility is being provided by RailTel, a public sector telecom infrastructure provider.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE
In November 2012, a public interest writ petition was filed in the Madras High Court citing the lack of a full-fledged emergency medical care centre at the terminus. Further to this, the Southern Railway invited expression of interest from several hospitals in the city to establish a medical care centre.
On 15 April 2013, a new emergency medical care centre was opened. The centre has three beds, two doctors on duty and another on standby, four nurses, a paramedic team, and a round-the-clock ambulance. The centre is equipped with oxygen cylinders, an ECG, a defibrillator and resuscitation equipment. The terminus is the first railway station in the country to have facilities of an ambulance.
PARKING
The station has parking facilities for more than 1,000 two-wheelers. About 1,000 cars are parked in the standard car park every day. Since March 2008, a premium car park facility for 80 cars in addition to its regular car park is functioning at the station. The cement-concrete-paved premium parking is located between the Moore Market reservation complex and the station's main building. However, the station still faces parking problems. About 3,000 taxis arrives at the station every day.
MAINTENANCE
Chennai Central suffers from lack of enough maintenance crew, which lead to dirty and unhygienic trains. According to the Railway sources, as of July 2012, Chennai Central was 180 short of the sanctioned 405 maintenance employees, including mechanical, electrical and general maintenance, required for cleaning the interiors and exteriors of trains and undertaking routine mechanical and electrical maintenance of trains. Contracts for cleaning the station has been awarded for a period of three years from 2010 for a value of ₹ 43.1 million. In 2007, the number of dustbins in the station was 28.50 per 10,000 passengers.
On average, about 51 train units depart and arrive at the station from different parts of the country everyday. Of the 102 trains, a 12 are sent during the day and another 7 at night to the Basin Bridge Train Care Centre for primary maintenance, which involves complete exterior and interior cleaning and total mechanical and electrical overhaul. The rest of the trains go through secondary maintenance or 'other-end attention' at the depot or 'turn back train attention' at Chennai Central itself. Secondary maintenance includes filling water, while the third is the 'other-end attention', in which the train, especially the toilets, is cleaned. The fourth category of trains, such as Sapthagiri Express and Pallavan Express, are turn-back trains, which arrive and leave in a short time from Chennai Central after toilet-cleaning and water-filling is done right at the terminus platform.
The station has been divided into two zones for mechanised cleaning contracts. As of 2008, Chennai Central had about 30 sanitary workers employed on a contractual basis in Zone I (platforms 1 to 6). Zone II (platforms 7 to 12) was cleaned by close to 40 railway employees.
YARDS AND SHEDS
TRAIN CARE CENTRE
A broad-gauge coach maintenance depot, called the Basin Bridge Train Care Centre, is located at the northern side of the terminus, where trains of 18 to 24 coaches are checked, cleaned and readied for its next trip after they return from round trips. It is the largest train care centre under the Southern Railway where 30 pairs of trains are inspected every day. The yard has 14 pit lines, each 3-ft deep, to inspect undercarriage of trains, but only two lines can accommodate 24-coach trains. The rest are designed to park 18-coach trains. Five to six people are allotted to each train. As of 2012, the centre has 3,500 employees, a shortage of about 400.
Water accumulated in pit lines are let out into the Buckingham Canal by means of drainage channels. However, as the yard is located in a basin area, water does not drain quickly enough. In addition, the centre faces pests and other hygiene issues too.
ELECTRIC TRIP SHED
The terminus has an electric locomotive trip shed, the Basin Bridge electric loco trip shed, located north of the train care centre. It is one of the five loco trip sheds of the Southern Railway. To lessen load on the shed, an additional electric trip shed has been created at Tondiarpet, which also serves as a crew change point for freights.
GOODS SHED
The terminus has a goods shed attached to it at Salt Cotaurs.
RENOVATION
Chennai Central Station gets renovation after 2010, is undertaken by the building division of the Southern Railway with the technical assistance provided by the Chennai circle of Archaeological Survey of India. the work is carried out to ensure the original character of the building is maintained.The Station building has maroon colour since its inception in 1873.
CONNECTIVITY
Chennai Central railway station is a hub for suburban trains. Suburban lines originating from Chennai Central include West North Line, North Line, and West Line. Chennai Park suburban station is in proximity to the station, thus facilitating connectivity to Tambaram/Chengalpet/Tirumalpur routes through South Line and South West Line. Chennai Central can be directly reached from all suburban stations and MRTS stations in and around Chennai (except Washermanpet and Royapuram) either through its own MMC Complex for suburban trains or through the nearby Park suburban station or the Park Town MRTS station. Currently, there is only one direct suburban train that plies from Chennai Beach Junction to Chennai Central via Washermanpet and Royapuram, and hence there is no frequent direct connectivity for these two stations to Chennai Central. The Chennai Park Town MRTS station is close to Chennai Central station.
Chennai Central is connected to the Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus and other parts of the city by buses operated by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, by means of separate bus lanes near the main entrance, close to the concourse. There are prepaid auto and taxi stands at the station premises. However, only 30 autorickshaws are presently attached to the prepaid counter parking, as Chennai Metro Rail has acquired its parking area for station construction.
The terminus is connected to the Park railway station and the Government General Hospital by two subways on either side. The two subways, which are one of the first in the city, are used by thousands of commuters day round. Nevertheless, jaywalking prevails as a substantial number of commuters prefer crossing the road, at times resulting in accidents.
The terminus is connected with the Egmore station, the other most important terminus of the city, by a circuitous and congested route covering a distance of 11.2 km via Chennai Beach. There was initially a proposal to connect the two termini by means of an elevated section with double-line broad-gauge electrified track with two elevated platforms at Chennai Central, at the cost of ₹ 930 million, which would cut the distance to 2.5 km. The project, approved on 8 April 2003 and initially aimed to be completed by 2005, was later scrapped owing to the expected rate of return on the project being only 1 to 2 percent, poor soil conditions on the Poonamallee High Road, and other issues.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The portion of the Buckingham canal running near the terminus and beneath Pallavan Salai is covered for 250 m, which makes the task of maintaining the canal difficult. After being desilted in 1998, the covered stretch of the canal near the terminus was cleaned in September 2012. Garbage is dumped into the canal via the openings near the Chennai Central premises. An estimated 6,000 cubic meters of silt was removed from the 2-m-deep canal.
INCIDENTS
On 14 August 2006, a major fire broke out in Chennai Central station, completely destroying a bookshop.
On 29 April 2009, a suburban EMU train from Chennai Central Suburban terminal was hijacked by an unidentified man, who rammed it into a stationary goods train at the Vyasarpadi Jeeva railway station, 4 kilometres northwest of Chennai Central. 4 passengers were killed and 11 were injured. The train which was scheduled to depart at 5:15 am started at 4:50 am instead. The train was moving with a speed of 92 km per hour with 35 passengers on board at the time of collision.
On 6 August 2012, a man hailing from Nepal perched atop the clock tower of the station's main building, creating a commotion. He was later safely persuaded back down the tower by the City Police and Southern Railway officials.
On 1 May 2014, the station witnessed two low-intensity blasts in two coaches S4 and S5 of the stationary Bangalore-Guwahati express, killing one female passenger and injuring at least fourteen.
SECURITY
In a first of its kind for the railways, a bomb disposal squad of the railway protection force, equipped with state-of-the-art gadgets imported at a cost of over ₹ 2.5 million, was inaugurated at Chennai Central on May 2002. The squad functions round the clock and its personnel were trained at the National Security Guard Training Centre at Maneswar and the Tamil Nadu Commando School. In 2009, following the train accident at the Vyasarpadi Jeeva station, surveillance cameras were installed at the suburban terminus platforms. A security boundary wall 200 m long was erected along platform 14 to check unauthorised persons entering the station. Two security booths were planned, one each at the main terminus and the suburban terminus. A government railway police (GRP) station is located on the first floor at the western end, headed by a DSP and two inspectors.[86]
In 2009, 39 CCTV cameras were installed in the premises along with a control room. In 2012, about 120 CCTV cameras are to be installed in Chennai Central. In April 2012, the GRP and the Railway Protection Force (RPF) together launched a helpline known as Kaakum karangal (literally meaning 'Protecting hands'). This involved dividing the terminus into six sectors and deploying 24 police personnel for security.
On 15 November 2012, Integrated Security System (ISS) was launched at the station, which comprises sub-systems such as CCTV surveillance system with 54 IP-based cameras, under-vehicle scanning system (UVSS) for entries and exits, and personal and X-ray baggage screening system. In addition, explosive detection and disposal squad have been deployed. The sub-system will be integrated by networking and monitored at the centralised control rooms. Existing CCTV network of suburban platforms has also been integrated to this system.
FUTURE
In 2004, a second terminal was planned near the Moore Market Complex, with six platforms to be constructed in the first phase of the project and four platforms each in the second and third phases. For additional infrastructure, the goods yard at Salt Cotaurs will be closed to provide more pit line and stabling line facilities for the new terminal.
In 2007, the Railway Board declared a plan to develop the terminus into a world-class one at a cost of ₹200 million (US$3.0 million), along with two other stations (Thiruvananthapuram Central and Mangalore Central), and a high-level committee was formed in 2009 to expedite the project at a total cost of ₹1,000 million (US$15 million). The plan included creating multi-level platforms where express and suburban trains could arrive and depart from the same complex. However, the project is yet to begin.
An underground metro station of the ongoing Chennai Metro Rail project is under construction at the Chennai Central station. It is one of the two metro stations where Corridor I (Airport–Washermanpet) of the project will intersect with Corridor II (Chennai Central–St. Thomas Mount via Egmore, CMBT). The metro station, being constructed at a depth of 25 metres, will be the largest of all metro stations in the city with an area of over 70,000 square metres. The station will act as a transit point for passengers from the Central, Park Town, and Park railway stations. It is estimated that more than 100,000 commuters will utilise the station daily.
In June 2012, the first skywalk in Chennai connecting Chennai Central, Park Railway Station and Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital was planned at a cost of ₹200 million (US$3.0 million). It will be 1 kilometre long, linking the station with nine points, including Evening Bazaar, Government Medical College and Ripon Buildings on Poonamallee High Road.
In February 2013, as part of a national initiative to eliminate ballast tracks at major stations, washable aprons - ballastless tracks or tracks on a concrete bed - were installed along the entire length of tracks of platforms 3, 4 and 5 at the terminus. Washable aprons that are already present for a few metres in some of the platforms at the terminus will be extended, viz. 30 metres on platform 3, 200 metres on platform 4, and 50 metres on platform 5, while new ones will be built on platforms with ballast tracks.
IN POPULAR CULTURE
Chennai Central railway station is one of the most prominent landmarks in the city that is often featured in movies and other pop culture in the region. The station has been used in numerous Indian novels and film and television productions over the years. Many films and television programs have been filmed at the station, including:
The station has been poetized by Vijay Nambisan in his 1988 award-winning poem 'Madras Central' published in 1989. The poem is regarded as a modern classic.
In 2009, the Department of Posts featured Chennai Central in a postal stamp.
WIKIPEDIA
North Western was once a large and famous bus company, operating its red and cream buses across a large territory from Northwich to Sheffield, and Rochdale to Matlock.
Its most profitable and frequent services were in the south and east of Greater Manchester, so when SELNEC offered to buy these services in 1972 the company was split up and eventually disappeared. But it is still fondly remembered, both for its local services in suburban sprawl and rural villages; and its network of express services stretching from Newcastle to London.
Bus number 972 (actually the company always referred to them as 'cars') isn't an express coach by any standards, and was more used to trundling around Stockport than standing in Blackpool coach station as here. But the X60 Manchester to Blackpool service, operated jointly with Ribble and Lancashire United, could be phenomenally busy at weekends when anything that was spare could be pressed into service for the 50-mile trip.
Luggage would go at the back of the lower saloon and upstairs passengers would get a good view of the countryside on a trip taking nearly two hours. The bus on the right is much more luxurious but it has come from Scotland, which at the time before the completion of the M74 and M6 would have been a very long trip along the A6 over Shap.
North Western has long gone but there are several preserved buses from the company at the Museum of Transport Greater Manchester to remind us. If you'd like to know more about the Museum of Transport and its collection of vintage buses, go to www.gmts.co.uk.
The early 1960's was a time of great change for Detroit. The economic recession that had set in in 1958, had cut great swathes from the profitability of the 'Big 3' auto makers - General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Corporation. It had also meant the end for many of the smaller independents, and critically wounded the others.
The other great change it had wrought was the introduction of the 'compact' US models, Corvair, Falcon and Valiant. These models gained share at the expense of the mid-scale, Big-3 brands, and also the offerings in the full-size classes.
These larger model were not forgotten about though. many of them gained space-age names, and used their extra size and market position to become more glamorous. Perhaps, also playing a part, was the rejection of such excessive styling. Though the fins had shrunk from the ultimate excess of the 1959 Cadillac, other stylistic features were still unrestrained. Chrysler had continued to evolve their 'forward look', first shown in 1957. For the 1961 Polara though, the cars reversed the rake of the fins, scalloping them out and framing the tail light, like a rocket-pod. At the front, a wide, concave grille with dual headlamps smoothed out and modernised the 'face'. Most of the central body still exhibited the form launched in 1960.
The companion 'Matador' model was discontinued, whilst the shorter-wheelbase 'Junior Dodge', the Dart, received the front end change, but with a more modest sweep of chrome on the rear flanks, joined by low-mounted tail lamps.
The pattern was set though, and volumes of full-size Dodges fell precipitously. Only 14,032 Polara were sold in the US for the 1961 model year.
As unappreciated as they were at the time, they now mark the end of an era in full-size US stylistic excess, and cut a fine line in a historic car show today.
This Lego miniland-scale 1961 Dodge Polara Hardtop and Convertible have been modelled for Flickr LUGNuts 69th Build Challenge, - 'The Summer of '69', celebrating vehicle of all makes and from any country made through the 1960's.
On August 31, 2021, the legendary Rio Grande Southern Railroad was brought back to life (if only for a day). Built in 1891 by Otto Mears, the original RGS was located in Colorado’s southwest corner and ran between Durango and Ridgway via Lizard Head Pass, hauling coal, silver ore, and other goods from the mining communities of Telluride and Rico. The RGS was profitable for only a few years before a silver panic crippled its finances, but nevertheless it managed to stay in business, struggling through two world wars before running its last train in 1951. Following this, its 3-foot-gauge rails were taken up.
Rio Grande Southern No. 20, an 1899 Schenectady Ten-Wheeler, is one of four RGS steam locomotives still in existence. It was preserved by the Rocky Mountain Railroad Club in 1952 when the RGS was abandoned and over the years was cosmetically restored for display, first in Alamosa and later at the Colorado Railroad Museum in Golden. After fifty years sitting cold, No. 20 was transported to the Strasburg Rail Road in Strasburg, Penn., for a top-to-bottom restoration beginning in 2006 that took 12 long years to compete. The restoration was spearheaded by a donation from the Moedinger family of Pennsylvania, who put up $400,000 for the effort. After additional fundraising, No. 20 finally steamed again around the loop track at the Colorado Railroad Museum in 2020.
While a 3/4th mile loop is nice for a short train ride, Jeff Taylor and others at CRRM desired take No. 20 to a railroad where it could really stretch its legs. That opportunity came in 2021. For No. 20’s first major outing since restoration the museum took the 4-6-0 to the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad at Antonito, Colorado. Its visit coincided with the Victorian Iron Horse Roundup, held in in celebration of the C&TS’s 50th anniversary, which featured four locomotives built before 1900.
The trip with No. 20 on August 31 was sponsored by TRAINS Magazine, with editor Jim Wrinn and video producer Kevin Gilliam coordinating the event for photographers. The event was dubbed “Sunset on the Rio Grande Southern.”
Tickets for the event went fast, despite it costing nearly $900. The primary goal of “Sunset on the Rio Grande Southern” was to recreate an RGS trip that the late William Moedinger photographed in 1941, with the brakeman riding the pilot beam to watch for landslides. The first half of the consist matched the train that Moedinger photographed that day, which was featured on the cover of TRAINS in February 1942. William Moedinger’s son Linn was the person that did much of the restoration work on No. 20 during its time in Pennsylvania.
Denver & Rio Grande Western 2-8-2 No. 463, owned by the C&TS, was re-lettered as long-scrapped Rio Grande Southern No. 455 for the trip, and doubleheaded with No. 20. Thanks to decades of hard work by the Friend of the C&TS, the Cumbres & Toltec was able to provide a long string of authentic narrow-gauge equipment with an authentic RGS short caboose bringing up the markers. The scenery on the C&TS between Antonito and Osier is similar to the territory the RGS ran in.
The charter was an incredible experience and recreated scenes that hadn’t been seen since the 1940s. Was it worth the money? I’ll let you be the judge of that, but for me it certainly was. A big thanks is due Jim Wrinn and Kevin Gilliam, plus the men and women of the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic for making it all possible.
Da Wikipédia, em português:
Louva-a-deus
O louva-a-deus ou cavalinho-de-deus é um insecto, da ordem Mantodea. Há cerca de 2400 espécies de louva-a-deus, a maioria das quais em ambiente tropical e subtropical. Seu nome popular decorre do fato de que, quando está pousado, o inseto lembra uma pessoa orando. Os louva-a-deus são insetos relativamente grandes, de cabeça triangular, tórax estreito com pronoto e abdómen bem desenvolvido. São predadores agressivos que caçam principalmente moscas e afídios. A caça é feita em geral de emboscada, facilitada pelas capacidades de camuflagem do louva-a-deus. Como não possuem veneno, os louva-a-deus contam com as suas pernas anteriores que são raptatórias, ou seja, modificadas como garras, para segurar a presa enquanto é consumida. A sua voracidade leva a que sejam considerados muito bem vindos pelos amantes da jardinagem e agricultura biológica, uma vez que, na ausência de pesticidas, são um fator importante no controlo de pragas de jardim. Na América do Norte ocorrem apenas três espécies de louva-a-deus, duas das quais introduzidas no início do século XX para este mesmo efeito.
O voo do louva-a-deus é algo impressionante. Remete ao voo de um caça de combate. Ele também tem a capacidade de desviar de ataques de morcegos em pleno voo executando mergulhos.
O louva-a-deus é um animal muito venerado na China, tendo inclusive estilos de Kung Fu baseados em seus movimentos.
Acasalamento:
O ritual de acasalamento dos louva-a-deus, que decorre por volta do Outono, é uma época de perigo para os machos da espécie, uma vez que a fêmea muitas vezes acaba por os matar e comer durante/depois do ato. Depois do fato consumado, a fêmea põe entre 10 a 400 ovos numa cápsula endurecida que deposita no chão, superfície plana ou enrolada numa folha. Em algumas espécies, a fêmea permanece perto da cápsula e a protege contra os predadores, em particular algumas espécies de vespa. Após a eclosão, o louva-a-deus nasce como ninfa, que é em tudo igual ao adulto excepto no tamanho menor e na ausência de asas e de órgãos reprodutores maduros.
From Wikipedia, in english:
Mantis
For other uses, see Praying mantis (disambiguation) and Mantis (disambiguation).
Mantodea
Temporal range: 145–0Ma
PreЄ
Є
O
S
D
C
P
T
J
K
Pg
N
Cretaceous–Recent
Mantis-greece-alonisos-0a.jpg
Adult female Sphodromantis viridis
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Subclass: Pterygota
Infraclass: Neoptera
Superorder: Dictyoptera
Order: Mantodea
Burmeister, 1838
Families
Acanthopidae
Amorphoscelididae
Chaeteessidae
Empusidae
Eremiaphilidae
Hymenopodidae
Iridopterygidae
Liturgusidae
Mantidae
Mantoididae
Metallyticidae
Sibyllidae
Tarachodidae
Thespidae
Toxoderidae
Synonyms
Manteodea Burmeister, 1829
Mantearia
Mantoptera
Mantodea (or mantises, mantes) is an order of insects that contains over 2,400 species and about 430 genera[1] in 15 families worldwide in temperate and tropical habitats. Most of the species are in the family Mantidae.
The English common name for the order is the mantises, or rarely (using a Latinized plural of Greek mantis), the mantes. The name mantid refers only to members of the family Mantidae, which was, historically, the only family in the Order, but with 14 additional families recognized in recent decades, this term can be confusing. The other common name, often applied to any species in the order, is "praying mantis",[2] because of the typical "prayer-like" posture with folded fore-limbs, although the eggcorn "preying mantis" is sometimes used in reference to their predatory habits.[3][4] In Europe and other regions, however, the name "praying mantis" refers to only a single species, Mantis religiosa. The closest relatives of mantises are the termites and cockroaches (order Blattodea). They are sometimes confused with phasmids (stick/leaf insects) and other elongated insects such as grasshoppers and crickets, or other insects with raptorial forelegs such as mantisflies.
Etymology:
The name mantodea is formed from the Ancient Greek words μάντις (mantis) meaning "prophet", and εἶδος (eidos) meaning "form" or "type". It was coined in 1838 by the German entomologist Hermann Burmeister.
Systematics:
The systematics of mantises have long been disputed. Mantises, along with walking sticks, were once placed in the order Orthoptera with the cockroaches (now Blattodea) and rock crawlers (now Grylloblattodea). Kristensen (1991) combined Mantodea with the cockroaches and termites into the order Dictyoptera.
Anatomy and morphology:
Mantises have two grasping, spiked forelegs ("raptorial legs") in which prey items are caught and held securely. In most insect legs, including the posterior four legs of a mantis, the coxa and trochanter combine as an inconspicuous base of the leg; in the raptorial legs however, the coxa and trochanter combine to form a segment about as long as the femur, which is a spiky part of the grasping apparatus (see illustration). Located at the base of the femur are a set of discoidal spines, usually four in number, but ranging from zero to as many as five depending on the species. These spines are preceded by a number of tooth-like tubercles, which, along with a similar series of tubercles along the tibia and the apical claw near its tip, give the foreleg of the mantis its grasp on its prey. The foreleg ends in a delicate tarsus made of between four and five segments and ending in a two-toed claw with no arolium and used as a walking appendage.[8]
The mantis thorax consists of a prothorax, a mesothorax, and a metathorax. In all species apart from the genus Mantoida, the prothorax, which bears the head and forelegs, is much longer than the other two thoracic segments. The prothorax is also flexibly articulated, allowing for a wide range of movement of the head and forelimbs while the remainder of the body remains more or less immobile. The articulation of the neck is also remarkably flexible; some species of mantis can rotate the head nearly 180 degrees.
Mantises may have a visual range of up to 20 metres. Their compound eyes may comprise up to 10,000 ommatidia. The eyes are widely spaced and laterally situated, affording a wide binocular field of vision and, at close range, precise stereoscopic vision. The dark spot on each eye is a pseudopupil. As their hunting relies heavily on vision, mantises are primarily diurnal. Many species, however, fly at night, and then may be attracted to artificial lights. Nocturnal flight is especially important to males in search of less-mobile females that they locate by detecting their pheromones. Flying at night exposes mantises to fewer bird predators than diurnal flight would. Many mantises also have an auditory thoracic organ that helps them to avoid bats by detecting their echolocation and responding evasively.[8]
Mantises can be loosely categorized as being macropterous (long-winged), brachypterous (short-winged), micropterous (vestigial-winged), or apterous (wingless). If not wingless, a mantis has two sets of wings: the outer wings, or tegmina, are usually narrow, opaque, and leathery. They function as camouflage and as a shield for the hind wings. The hind wings are much broader, more delicate, and transparent. They are the main organs of flight, if any. Brachypterous species are at most minimally capable of flight, other species not at all. The wings are mostly erected in these mantises for alarming enemies and attracting females. Even in many macropterous species the female is much heavier than the male, has much shorter wings, and rarely takes flight if she is capable of it at all.
The abdomen of all mantises consist of ten tergites with a corresponding set of nine sternites visible in males and seven visible in females. The slim abdomen of most males allows them to take flight more easily while the thicker abdomen of the females houses the reproductive machinery for generating the ootheca. The abdomen of both sexes ends in a pair of cerci.
Evolution:
One theory for the evolution of the group is that mantises evolved from proto-cockroaches, diverging from their common ancestors by the Cretaceous period, possibly from species like Raphidiomimula burmitica, a predatory cockroach with mantis-like forelegs. Possibly the earliest known modern mantis is Regiata scutra, although more common (and confirmed) is Santanmantis, a stilt-legged genus, also from the Cretaceous. Like their close termite cousins, though, mantises did not become common and diverse until the early Tertiary period.
Behavior:
Diet and predatory behavior:
Most mantises are exclusively predatory while exceptions are predominantly so. Insects form their primary prey, but the diet of a mantis changes as it grows larger. In its first instar a mantis eats small insects such as tiny flies or its own siblings. In later instars it does not or cannot profitably pursue such small prey. In the final instar as a rule the diet still includes more insects than anything else, but large species have been known to prey on small scorpions, lizards, frogs, birds, snakes, fish, and even rodents; they feed on any species small enough for them to capture, but large enough to engage their attention. For example, a large mantis feeding on a bee or bug might be pestered with impunity by jackal flies and biting midges that it would readily have eaten in its first instar. Large prey tends to increase in value with the cube of its size: a blowfly four times as long as a jackal fly represents a meal about 64 times as massive. However, the chewing action can be always triggered by picking the mantis up to deny it traction and stimulating its mandibles with food. When a female mantis is into her final growth spurt and is accumulating nutrients to make eggs, the largest available prey that she can manage is the most effective for her to concentrate on.[citation needed]
The majority of mantises are ambush predators, but some ground and bark species actively pursue their prey. For example, members of a few genera such as the ground mantids, Entella, Ligaria and Ligariella, run over dry ground seeking prey much as tiger beetles do. Species that are predominantly ambush predators camouflage themselves and spend long periods standing perfectly still. They largely wait for their prey to stray within reach, but most mantises chase tempting prey if it strays closely enough. In pure ambush mode a mantis lashes out at remarkable speed when a target does get within reach, details of the speed and mode attack varying with the species. A mantis catches prey items and grips them with grasping, spiked forelegs. The mantis usually holds its prey with one arm between the head and thorax, and the other on the abdomen. Then, if the prey does not resist, the mantis eats it alive. However, if the prey does resist, the mantis often eats it head first, some species of mantises being more prone to the behaviour than others. Unlike sucking predatory arthropods, a mantis does not liquefy prey tissues or drain its prey's body fluids, but simply slices and chews it with its mandibles as convenient, often from one end. If it should happen to have begun feeding on the midsection of the prey, it typically ends up eating first one remnant end from one foreclaw, then the rest from the other, leaving nothing but accidentally severed fragments such as limbs.[citation needed]
Chinese Mantids have been found to gain benefits in survivorship, growth, and fecundity by supplementing their diet with pollen. In replicated laboratory tests the first instar actively fed on pollen just after hatching, thereby avoiding starvation in the absence of prey. The adults fed on pollen-laden insects, attaining fecundity as high as those fed on larger numbers of insects alone.
Defense and camouflage:
Generally, mantises protect themselves by camouflage and concealment. When directly threatened, many mantis species stand tall and spread their forelegs, with their wings fanning out wide. The fanning of the wings makes the mantis seem larger and more threatening, with some species having bright colors and patterns on their hind wings and inner surfaces of their front legs for this purpose. If harassment persists, a mantis may strike with its forelegs and attempt to pinch or bite. As part of the threat display, some species also may produce a hissing sound by expelling air from the abdominal spiracles. When flying at night, at least some mantises are able to detect the echolocation sounds produced by bats, and when the frequency begins to increase rapidly, indicating an approaching bat, they stop flying horizontally and begin a descending spiral toward the safety of the ground, often preceded by an aerial loop or spin.[10][11]
Mantises, like stick insects, show rocking behaviour in which the insect makes rhythmic, repetitive side-to-side movements. Functions proposed for this behaviour include the enhancement of crypsis by means of the resemblance to vegetation moving in the wind. However, the repetitive swaying movements may be most important in allowing the insects to discriminate objects from the background by their relative movement, a visual mechanism typical of animals with simpler sight systems. Rocking movements by these generally sedentary insects may replace flying or running as a source of relative motion of objects in the visual field.[12]
Mantises are camouflaged, and most species make use of protective coloration to blend in with the foliage or substrate, both to avoid predators, and to better snare their prey. Various species have evolved to not only blend with the foliage, but to mimic it, appearing as either living or withered leaves, sticks, tree bark, blades of grass, flowers, or even stones. Some species in Africa and Australia are able to turn black after a molt following a fire in the region to blend in with the fire ravaged landscape (a type of adaptive melanism referred to as fire melanism). While mantises can bite, they have no venom. They can also slash captors with their raptorial legs (which is often preceded by a threat display wherein the mantis rears back and spreads its front legs and wings (if present), often revealing vivid colors and/or eyespots to startle a predator). Mantises are without chemical protection; many large insectivores eat mantises, including Scops owls, shrikes, bullfrogs, chameleons, and Milk Snakes.
Reproduction and life history:
Sexual cannibalism is common among most predatory species of mantises in captivity, and under some circumstances may also be observed in the field. 90% of the predatory species of mantis participate in sexual cannibalism.[13] The female may begin feeding by biting off the male’s head (as they do with regular prey), and if mating has begun, the male’s movements may become even more vigorous in its delivery of sperm. Early researchers thought that because copulatory movement is controlled by a ganglion in the abdomen, not the head, removal of the male’s head was a reproductive strategy by females to enhance fertilisation while obtaining sustenance. Later, this behavior appeared to be an artifact of intrusive laboratory observation. Whether the behavior in the field is natural, or also the result of distractions caused by the human observer, remains controversial. Mantises are highly visual organisms, and notice any disturbance occurring in the laboratory or field such as bright lights or moving scientists. Research by Liske and Davis (1984)[14] and others found (e.g. using video recorders in vacant rooms) that Chinese mantises that had been fed ad libitum (so that they were not hungry) actually displayed elaborate courtship behavior when left undisturbed. The male engages the female in courtship dance, to change her interest from feeding to mating. Courtship display has also been observed in other species, but it does not hold for all mantises.
The reason for sexual cannibalism has been debated, with some considering submissive males to be achieving a selective advantage in their ability to produce offspring. This theory is supported by a quantifiable increase in the duration of copulation among males who are cannibalized, in some cases doubling both the duration and the chance of fertilization. This is contrasted by a study where males were seen to approach hungry females with more caution, and were shown to remain mounted on hungry females for a longer time, indicating that males actively avoiding cannibalism may mate with multiple females. The same study also found that hungry females generally attracted fewer males than those who were well fed.[15] The act of dismounting is one of the most dangerous times for males during copulation, for it is at this time that females most frequently cannibalize their mates. This increase in mounting duration was thought to indicate that males are more prone to wait for an opportune time to dismount from a hungry female rather than from a satiated female that would be less likely to cannibalize her mate. Some consider this to be an indication that male submissiveness does not inherently increase male reproductive success, rather that more fit males are likely to approach a female with caution and escape.[16]
The mating season in temperate climates typically begins in autumn. To mate following courtship, the male usually leaps onto the female’s back, and clasps her thorax and wing bases with his forelegs. He then arches his abdomen to deposit and store sperm in a special chamber near the tip of the female’s abdomen. The female then lays between 10 and 400 eggs, depending on the species. Eggs are typically deposited in a frothy mass that is produced by glands in the abdomen. This froth then hardens, creating a protective capsule. The protective capsule and the egg mass is called an ootheca. Depending on the species, the ootheca can be attached to a flat surface, wrapped around a plant or even deposited in the ground. Despite the versatility and durability of the eggs, they are often preyed on, especially by several species of parasitic wasps. In a few species, the mother guards the eggs.[citation needed]
As in related insect groups, mantises go through three stages of metamorphosis: egg, nymph, and adult (mantises are among the hemimetabolic insects). The nymph and adult insect are structurally quite similar, except that the nymph is smaller and has no wings or functional genitalia. The nymphs are also sometimes colored differently from the adult, and the early stages are often mimics of ants. A mantis nymph increases in size (often changing its diet as it does so) by replacing its outer body covering with a sturdy, flexible exoskeleton and molting when needed. Molting can happen from five to ten times, depending on the species. After the final molt most species have wings, though some species are wingless or brachypterous ("short-winged"), particularly in the female sex.[citation needed]
In tropical species, the natural lifespan of a mantis in the wild is about 10–12 months, but some species kept in captivity have been sustained for 14 months. In colder areas, females die during the winter (as well as any surviving males)
Pest control uses:
Organic gardeners who avoid pesticides may encourage mantises as a form of biological pest control. During fall in temperate regions, mantis females typically deposit an ootheca on the underside of a leaf or on a twig, and in some species these are harvested commercially. If the egg case survives winter, the offspring, called nymphs, emerge in late spring or early summer. The nymphs have voracious appetites and typically cannibalize each other if they cannot find an adequate supply of aphids and other small insects. Tens of thousands of mantis egg cases are sold each year in some garden stores for this purpose. However, mantises prey on neutral and beneficial insects as well, basically eating anything they can successfully capture and devour.
Conservation status:
With one exception (the ground mantis Litaneutria minor in Canada, where it is rare — though it is common in the United States), North American mantises are not included among threatened or endangered species, though species in other parts of the world are under threat from habitat destruction. The European mantis (Mantis religiosa) is the state insect of Connecticut, but the General Statutes of Connecticut do not list any special protected status, as it is a non-native species from Europe and Africa. It became the state insect in October 1977 following a school project between Center Road School in Vernon, CT and then State Representative Chester W. Morgan of Vernon's 56th State Assembly District.
Introduced species:
Over 20 species are native to the United States, including the common Carolina Mantis, with only one native to Canada. Two species (the Chinese Mantis and the European Mantis) were deliberately introduced to serve as pest control for agriculture, and have spread widely in both countries. Additionally, there is a strong market in the exotic pet trade for mantis species from Asia, Africa and South America, and many species are bred in captivity for this purpose.
Cultural references:
One of the earliest mantis references is in the ancient Chinese dictionary Erya, which gives its attributes in poetry (representing courage and fearlessness), as well as a brief description. A later text, the Jingshi Zhenglei Daguan Bencao 經史證類大觀本草 ( Epic 史, history 證, collection 類, kinds 大觀, overall impression 本, basic 草, agriculture Annotated and Arranged by Types, Based upon the Classics and Historical Works") from 1108, is impressively correct on the construction of the egg packages, the development cycle, the anatomy and even the function of the antennae.
Western descriptions of the biology and morphology of the mantises had become relatively accurate by the 18th century. Roesel von Rosenhof accurately illustrated and described them in the Insekten-Belustigungen (Insect Entertainments). Aldous Huxley made philosophical observations about the nature of death while two mantises mated in the sight of two characters in the novel Island (the species was Gongylus gongylodes). The naturalist Gerald Durrell's autobiography My Family and Other Animals includes an account of a very evenly matched battle between a mantis and a gecko.
M. C. Escher's woodcut Dream depicts a human-sized mantis standing on a sleeping bishop.[18]
Two martial arts that had been separately developed in China have movements and fighting strategies based on those of the Mantis. As one of these arts was developed in northern China, and the other in southern parts of the country, the arts are nowadays referred to (both in English and Chinese) as 'Northern Praying Mantis' and 'Southern Praying Mantis'. Both arts are very popular in China, and have also been imported to the West in recent decades.
Mythology:
Southern African indigenous mythology refers to the mantis as a god in Khoi and San traditional myths and practices, and the word for the mantis in Afrikaans is hottentotsgot (literally, a god of the Khoi).[19][20] The word "Mantis" is also the Greek word for "prophet or seer".
Financial District, Lower Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States
Summary The former Cities Service Building at 70 Pine Street is a 66-story skyscraper, rising from a trapezoidal site bounded by Pine Street, Cedar Street, and Pearl Street. An icon of the lower Manhattan skyline, the building’s shaft terminates in a slender pinnacle crowned by an illuminated lantern and stainless steel spire. At the time of completion in 1932, this Art Deco style tower was the tallest structure in lower Manhattan, and at 952 feet, the third tallest structure in the world. Commissioned by a major American corporation, it was an expression of the owner’s success, escalating real estate costs, and the current zoning code that required buildings to diminish in mass as they rise. The Cities Service Company was chartered by Henry L. Doherty in 1910, and quickly grew to become one of the largest corporations in the United States, controlling approximately 150 energy firms in 38 states, including numerous oil and power suppliers. In the late 1920s, Doherty made considerable investments in Manhattan real estate, acquiring 60 Wall Street, which he planned to expand and occupy as his headquarters. When two proposals failed to win the Department of Buildings’ approval, the current site was assembled, costing $2 million. Clinton & Russell, Holton & George served as architect, designing a set back tower, clad with white brick, light gray Indiana limestone, and speckled rose-and-black granite.
Thomas J. George is thought to have been the lead designer, enriching the lower floors with stylized reliefs that rival any architectural ornamentation created during the Art Deco period in New York City. Of particular interest is the company’s triangular logo, as well as sunflowers, sunbursts and stepped pyramids, which direct the eye upward and recall the shape of the spire. The northeast and southeast portals are the most distinctive entrances, with four-story-tall archways leading to multistory vestibules connecting the first floor and basement lobbies. At the center of both east portals is a limestone model of the Cities Service Building. In a city crowded with new skyscrapers, this unusual sculptural feature illustrated what had become almost impossible to see – the building in its entirety. Doherty’s headquarters incorporated various innovative features, including escalators linking the lower floors, the city’s first double-deck elevators, and private terraces enclosed by steel railings coated with aluminum lacquer.
The opening of the building coincided with Doherty’s return as the company’s chief executive and he intended to occupy the crown as his private triplex. When plans were canceled, the uppermost floor was converted to a public observation gallery, with unsurpassed views of New York harbor. Though completed during the early years of the Great Depression, the Cities Service Building was a modest success. Financed through a public stock offering rather than a mortgage, it reportedly achieved profitability by 1936 and was 90% occupied by 1941. The Cities Service Company was renamed CITGO in 1965 and the building was sold to the American International Group in 1976. Following AIG’s financial collapse in 2008 and a subsequent bailout by the U.S. government, this distinctive tower was acquired by Sahn Eagle LLC in 2009. The Cities Service Building is one of lower Manhattan’s most prominent skyscrapers and one of the finest Art Deco style buildings in New York City.
DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
Following World War I, high-rise office buildings transformed the lower Manhattan skyline. Built by real estate developers and major American corporations, these skyscrapers were bold expressions of corporate success, escalating real estate costs, and the current set-back zoning regulations. Conceived during the late 1920s, the Cities Service Building was completed at the start of the Great Depression in 1932. A lasting symbol of one early 20th-century company’s rapid growth and accomplishments, at 952 feet this Art Deco style tower was once the third tallest building in the world.
Henry L(atham) Doherty and the Cities Service Company
The Cities Service Company was chartered in 1910 to “distribute light, heat, and power.” Backed by various New York City investors, it was headed by Henry L. Doherty (18701939), an astute businessman and “self-trained engineer” who held 150 patents. Born in Columbus, Ohio, Doherty managed several Midwestern utility companies before moving east to organize Henry L. Doherty & Company, with substantial investments throughout the United States, Mexico, and Canada. In tandem with Cities Service, Doherty would own “directly or indirectly, a controlling interest in more than 150 subsidiaries,” most of which were involved in oil production or the delivery of gas and electricity. By 1932, Doherty was a multimillionaire and his companies enjoyed record profits, serving 9,000 communities in 38 states and Canada and 600,000 stockholders. Many lawsuits, however, were brought against his billion-dollar corporation during the Depression years and though Doherty reportedly relinquished control of the company in 1935, it was not until his death in 1939 that W. Alton Jones officially succeeded him as chief executive.
Doherty held substantial real estate investments, with numerous properties in Florida and New York City. In December 1924, he purchased 60 Wall Street (1903-5, demolished in 1975), where his offices had been since 1906, for $3 million. Designed by Clinton & Russell, this building had an unusual two-part layout, incorporating a 15-story structure on Wall Street linked to a 27-story structure on Pine Street. Doherty owned several additional properties in lower Manhattan, as well as “50,000 square feet of partly improved land” east of Battery Park, where, as early as 1919, he proposed to build “a great business centre, rivaling Wall Street.” It seems likely that Doherty intended to consolidate his workforce at this location but when the project failed to go forward he looked elsewhere, establishing the Pine Street Realty Company by early 1929.
With the purchase of 60 Wall Street, Doherty had developed plans to substantially enlarge the structure. Clinton & Russell’s first scheme, presented in March 1927, incorporated a simple slab-like addition of undetermined height. The second plan, in October of the same year, was more ambitious, featuring a 60-story neo-Gothic style tower above a completely redesigned base. When neither scheme won approval from the Department of Buildings, the Pine Street Realty Company (later known as 60 Wall Tower, Inc.) began to purchase parcels on the north side of Pine Street, where the Cities Service Building would ultimately stand. This location had significant advantages. Located close to the center of the financial district, it was also near the Third Avenue elevated railroad which ran along Pearl Street to South Ferry. With mostly low-rise neighbors to the east, the site had great visibility and any high-rise structure built there was destined to become an icon of the lower Manhattan skyline.
The 32,000 square-foot site was assembled by purchase and lease during 1929 and 1930, with a total of 247 feet on Pine Street, 247 feet on Cedar Street, and 116 feet on Pearl Street. All of the 23 lots contained three-to-five story structures, masonry buildings that had low property values and could be easily demolished. The estimated cost was $2 million – far less than most comparable downtown sites. Edwin C. Hill, a newspaper writer who authored a congratulatory booklet on the Cities Service Building, claimed:
It formed a site of unusual depth and offered attractive and inspirational opportunities to architects. For this a substantial figure has been paid and yet it represented one of the most economical assemblages of real estate in the history of Manhattan Island.
It was an optimistic period for Manhattan real estate and several significant skyscrapers were rising in the area, including 1 Wall Street (Voorhees, Gmelin & Walker, 1928-31) and the Manhattan Company Building (H. Craig Severance, Yasuo Matsui, Shreve & Lamb, 1929-30, both are designated New York City Landmarks).
By the time the Pine Street Realty Company filed plans with the Department of Buildings (NB 118-30) in May 1930, however, the economic climate had changed measurably. Despite an increasingly pessimistic forecast following the Wall Street crash of October 1929, Doherty persevered, claiming his $7 million tower would be the “first of [a] series of structures which will be erected on four acres of sites controlled by the company in various sections of the financial district.” Of these proposed buildings, however, only Cities Service was built. To accomplish this, an unusual financing method was adopted. Rather than use a conventional mortgage, Henry L. Doherty & Co. issued stock, selling more than $15.7 million in shares to individual investors. This interest-free strategy would allow the company to later describe the project as “financially unique among large New York office buildings.”
Clinton & Russell, Holton & George
The architect of the Cities Service Building was Clinton & Russell, Holton & George. Founded by Charles W. Clinton (1838-1910) and William Hamilton Russell (1857-1907), this prolific architectural firm was active from 1894 to 1947. Specializing in the design of office buildings and apartment houses, it was responsible for such designated New York City Landmarks as Graham Court (1899-1901), the Broad Exchange Building (1900-02), the Beaver Building (1903-4), and the Apthorp Apartments (1906-8). Following the deaths of Russell and Clinton, the firm kept its name under the leadership of James Hollis Wells (1864-1926), Alfred
J.S. Holton, and Thomas J(ohn) George. Wells died in 1926 and the firm became known as Clinton & Russell, Holton & George.
Holton (c. 1879-1936) joined the firm around 1897. Born and educated in Ontario, Canada, he was a resident of Brooklyn and a veteran of the First World War, having served in the Office Reserve Corps. George grew up in Rome, New York, and trained as an architect at Cornell University (B.A., 1896), where his thesis explored Italian Renaissance architecture. Following graduation, he moved to New York City and joined Clinton & Russell. Like Holton, he remained with the firm for the rest of his career and served as the chief designer of many prestigious projects. An official biography reported that he was “in charge of almost all of the designs” and was, at the time of his death, described as the “retired senior partner of the architectural firm Clinton & Russell of New York and architect of the Cities Service Building.”
In the 1920s, Clinton & Russell were based in lower Manhattan, near many of its clients, at 17 John Street. While most of the firm’s early commissions had been neo-Renaissance style, following the First World War it gradually moved away from classicism, using restrained Moorish, neo-Gothic and Art Deco style details. In particular, two projects anticipate the deisgn of the Cities Service Building. One Cedar Street (aka 104 Maiden Lane, 187-97 Pearl Street), completed on the adjoining block, has almost identical massing and restrained Art Deco details. The latter project, constructed for the New Amsterdam Causality Company at 60 John Street, at the southwest corner of William Street, displays a similarly restrained palette, executed with limestone and granite. Cities Service would be the firm’s last and most important commission. Though Clinton & Russell would continue to operate throughout the Depression years, most of the firm’s work involved refurbishing interiors.
Planning the Cities Service Building
Thomas J. George is likely to have designed, or supervised the design of the Cities Service Building. Planned as a corporate headquarters and to generate rental income, the massing conforms to the 1916 zoning ordinance, which regulated how most commercial buildings were built in New York City until 1961. Conceived to protect access to air and light in Manhattan’s most crowded districts, this law required buildings to set back in tiers as they rise and to reduce their mass at certain heights. Bulk, consequently, was regulated and above the base diminished in stages, creating wedding-cake-like silhouettes in which the highest floors covered 25 per cent of the lot. At this point, there were no height restrictions and the total height was limited by only economics, technology, and ambition.
In the late 1920s, the skyscraper was carefully analyzed by the economist W.C. Clark. He presented his findings in a lecture at the Engineers’ Club (a designated New York City Landmark) in October 1929 – as plans for the Cities Service Building were being drafted. At 63 stories, Clark concluded, a building reaches the “point of maximum economic returns.” This study also encouraged the use of “ingenious traffic arrangements . . . such as double decked cabs.” It seems likely that these recommendations directly shaped the original plan, which George filed with the Department of Buildings six months later as a 63-story office building with “twin deck elevators.” In subsequent months, however, three stories were added and the total height of the structure was increased from 763 to 950 feet (including the spire), surpassing the nearby 927-foot-tall Manhattan Company Building at 40 Wall Street, which was nearing completion. In doing so, Cities Service would become Manhattan’s tallest building below 34th Street.
George divided the elevations into three distinct sections. This arrangement conformed to the zoning ordinance and accentuates the vertical ascent of the tower. While the lowest floors are mostly obscured by neighboring buildings, the upper floors can be read as a continuous spire. The base fills the entire parcel, setting back gradually through the midsection, to the 30th floor. Because the site slopes up from east to west, the east elevation, adjoining Pearl Street, has a full basement and begins to set back at the 10th floor, while the west elevation adjoins the Down Town Association (1886-87, 1910-11, a designated New York City Landmark) and sets back at the 12th floor. Many of the shallow setbacks were accessible to tenants and could be used as terraces. At the 31st floor, the slab-like shaft begins, rising in a symmetrical fashion to the 55th floor. The 66th floor contained an observation gallery, crowned by a 27-foot-tall tiered glass lantern, and a 97-foot-tall stainless steel spire, which incorporated a neon beacon that was reportedly “visible for 200 miles at sea and inland.”
The upper floors have small footprints and relatively little floor space – especially when the corridors, stairways, and elevators shafts are subtracted. To reduce the area devoted to such necessities, as Clark suggested, the architects employed eight double-deck elevators – the first instance in the United States. According to the Real Estate Record and Builder’s Guide, this feature was “permitted by special provision in the new elevator code” and had “long been awaited by the industry as the solution to the problem of tall building economics.” With fewer elevators shafts, construction costs were reduced and approximately 40,000 additional square feet was made available for lease, with an estimated value of “$84,000 a year in rentals.” Manufactured by the Otis Elevator Company, in Yonkers, New York, each of the units contained a pair of stacked compartments, allowing passengers to enter or exit from two floors simultaneously. When in use, primarily during the morning and evening rush, the upper cabs stopped at the even-numbered floors, and the lower cabs, at odd. This technology attracted considerable media attention and remained in operation until 1972.
The Exteriors
In mid-to-late 1920s, a new style for corporate skyscrapers emerged and grew popular. Following completion of the neo-Gothic style Woolworth Building (a designated New York City Landmark and Interior) in 1914, many architects looked to the middle ages for aesthetic ideas, embellishing structures with turrets, finials and gargoyles. Historical motifs, however, soon began to lose favor and were replaced by a new decorative vocabulary inspired by contemporary European and American trends. Talbot Hamlin, a professor of architecture at Columbia University, observed in 1932:
That name – Modernism – covers inadequately a great number of diverse styles and movements, individual and local, with differing aims … the search for originality, for new forms, a feeling that traditionalism is a bar to creative design.
Almost four decades passed before this short-lived aesthetic would be given a stylistic label by the English art historian Bevis Hillier. Distinguished by low decorative reliefs, vivid colors and unusual materials, since the 1960s this style has been commonly called “Art Deco,” suggesting a loose connection to the Paris Exposition des Arts Decoratifs and Industriels of 1925, which helped introduce these aesthetic concepts to a wider audience.
Unlike the European avant-garde of the 1920s that promoted man-made materials and industrial production, architects who worked in the Art Deco style placed a high value on craftsmanship. Ornament remained important but was executed with a wide range of materials, from rare imported marbles to the latest industrial metals, such as aluminum. To please tenants and visitors, the most flamboyant details were typically reserved for the entrances and lobby. This is particularly true at the Cities Service Building; where the entrances are quite ornate and the rest of the elevations display considerable decorative restraint. Publicist Edwin C. Hill remarked:
Mr. Doherty himself found time to give a great deal of personal attention to the development of the plans . . . Generally speaking, he insisted on dignity with beauty, to the absolute avoidance of the garish, the flamboyant, and the over colorful.
To accomplish this goal, mostly light-colored materials were chosen, namely south Indiana limestone for the lowest elevations and four different shades of white-gray face brick, which darken slightly near the top – to increase the contrast of the tower against a bright sky. A striking exception is the polished red-and-black Brazilian granite veneer that extends around the base and continues the vertical expression of the limestone piers. This conspicuous material helps prepare visitors for the sumptuous first floor lobby, which functioned as the main entrance and a shared public space.
The first floor lobby has four entrances, two each on Pine Street and Cedar Street. This arrangement allows only the west entrances to be at grade, while tenants using the east entrances must ascend interior stairs. The lobby was intended to function as an extension of the street and contains storefronts in the east, west, and Pine Street halls. These retail spaces face inward and were not accessible from outside. A fifth entrance, on Pearl Street, served the basement lobby. Originally located in the shadow of the noisy elevated railroad, this entrance received a somewhat simpler decorative treatment.
On Pine and Cedar Streets, tenants enter through monumental stepped portals. The east portals are centered below the tower and provide entry to handsome multistory vestibules that incorporate stairs to the first floor and basement lobbies. Taller, deeper and somewhat grander than the west portals, which are two stories tall and have revolving doors, these impressive four-story entrances incorporate two sets of three doors, grouped to either side of a prominent limestone pillar. The side walls of each portal, as well as the ceilings, display limestone reliefs with repeating images of the Cities Service logo, a delta or triangle set within a trefoil, as well as other stylized forms. Similar reliefs, with rosettes at center, draw attention to the spandrels between the third and fourth story windows.
The center pillars in the east portals serve as pedestals for large “portraits” of the Cities Service Building. Carved in limestone, each almost free-standing sculpture stands about 14 feet tall. Rene P(aul) Chambellan (1893-1958), who designed the figurative reliefs on the aluminum elevator doors in the first floor lobby, was a celebrated architectural modeler and may have played a role in each sculpture’s design. A mostly accurate representation of the building, one can distinguish the various setbacks and windows, and even such details as the building portraits. Since medieval times, architects have occasionally used architectural imagery in their works, for instance, at the entrances to churches where patrons were sometimes depicted holding representations of the structure they sponsored. This idea reappears in the soaring elevator lobby of the 1913 Woolworth Building (a designated New York City Landmark) where merchant F.W. Woolworth is memorably depicted as a grotesque holding a miniature model of the tower.
At Cities Service, the limestone portraits celebrated the owner’s lofty status and direct the eye skyward. In addition, these sculptures help people visualize the tower as a whole. This was especially important in lower Manhattan, where streets can be unusually narrow, making it nearly impossible to view a building in its entirety. Other notable New York City structures that incorporate self-referential images include the Fuller Building (lobby floor mosaic), the Chrysler Building (ceiling mural), 500 Fifth Avenue (entrance relief), City Bank-Farmer’s Trust Company (interior grillwork), the Empire State Building (lobby relief), and 30 Rockefeller Plaza (mural).
Decorative Metalwork
The silvery-white aluminum metalwork was “executed under the supervision of the Parkhurst Organization.” Clif(f) Parkhurst (c. 1885-1965), who began his career following the First World War, was praised by the short-lived, monthly commercial journal Metalcraft as “needing no introduction to the architectural world. He has designed some of the exquisite work in metal in the country.” During this period, evidence of his skill was found in the Shelton Hotel (Arthur Loomis Harmon, 1924), Western Union Building (Voorhees, Gmelin & Walker, 1928-30, a designated New York City Landmark and Interior) and One Wall Street (Voorhees, Gmelin & Walker, 1929-30, a designated New York City Landmark). Relatively little is known about Parkhurst’s career. He was a frequent contributor to Metalcraft, including one of the only known illustrated articles to address the design of the Cities Service Building. Though hardly an impartial observer, he wrote that it was:
. . . a structure of restrained modern design which reflects skilful [sic] craftsmanship and the most advanced engineering knowledge . . . The idea of permanency is at once appreciated and the effects sought by the architects have been faithfully reproduced.
Aluminum was one of the signature materials of the Art Deco and Moderne styles. Above the various entrance doors are rows of convex aluminum reliefs depicting pairs of butterflies with outstretched wings pecking at sunflowers, a possible allusion to oil production. Other details that were probably designed or executed by Parkhurst include the rope-like enframement that surrounds each portal, the large ventilation grille in front of the air intake chamber on Cedar Street, and the spandrels on the lower floors. Said to be of “unique construction,” these spandrels show “polished arrises on a deplated aluminum field.” An arrise is a sharp edge or ridge, but these forms also suggest frozen fountains, or perhaps more self-referentially, an illuminated spire. Such imagery appeared frequently in 1920s architecture and graphics and can be interpreted as a metaphor for the skyscraper, or perhaps, the city as a whole.
The east portals frame four levels of windows. As originally built the lowest group, directly above the doors, contained numerous rows of horizontal glass louvers rather than fixed panes. Parkhurst explained their purpose in Metalcraft:
The street doors are especially designed at some of the street entrances as to their operation. The glass louvres (sic) . . . acts as baffles during the operation of this especially designed door. The sash directly behind the louvers opens with the door in dual operation and proves effective in reducing the customary hazard of wind pressure and permits a weather tight fitting of the doors.
In a speech presented to the National Association of Bronze, Iron and Wire Manufacturers in October 1930, Parkhurst highlighted the role that specialists, like himself, played in the creation of skyscrapers: “Today, the skyline of many of our great cities bears evidence of our collaborative work and although our part is relatively minor, we really get a thrill out of our work.”
Construction
Crews began to clear the west half of the site in early 1930. The excavations, which reached a depth of 60 feet, removed more than 100,000 tons of rock and earth. According to early estimates, this portion of the building was scheduled to be completed in May 1931, and the easterly portion – where the tower would rise – by May 1932. The contractor was James Stewart & Company. Founded in 1845, this firm grew to become one of the “so-called ‘big five’ in the field of American building construction,” with offices throughout the United States and abroad. In 1930, Stewart was the nation’s third most active builder, behind George A. Fuller and Marc Eidlitz & Son, with more than $22 million in new contracts. Under senior member A. M. Stewart, it received many important jobs in New York City, erecting such designated Landmarks as Mecca Temple (now City Center, H. P. Knowles with Clinton & Russell, 1922-24), the New York Central Building (1927-29) and the United States Courthouse (1933-36) on Foley Square. For Cities Service, engineer J(ohn) M. Parrish acted as general superintendent of construction.
Work commenced in May 1930. By April 1931, the steel framing had reached the 27th floor, and by July 1931, the 59th floor. On average, three floors were added each week. About 600 men were involved in the project, requiring 24,000 tons of steel and 119,000 man hours in which “no fatal injury or lost-time accident was recorded.” The tapered stainless steel spire, rising from the top of the observation gallery, was installed during October 1931. To connect the building to 60 Wall Street, a tunnel was constructed, as well as an enclosed pedestrian bridge at the 16th floor. Completed by February 1932, this mid-air feature served two purposes: it provided direct access between the company’s two buildings and allowed the new tower to adopt a more prestigious Wall Street address.
In early 1932, work was described as “rapidly nearing completion” and during subsequent months advertisements for office space were placed in local newspapers. Promoted as “Sixty Wall Tower,” the building was proudly described as “The Aristocrat of Skyscrapers . . . The distinctive beauty of its exterior and interior have been united in a harmonious alliance of its architects, engineers and builders.” A temporary certificate of occupancy was awarded by the Department of Buildings in March 1932 and a permanent one in August 1932.
Sixty Wall Tower
On May 13, 1932, a formal ceremony was held to celebrate the opening of 60 Wall Tower, corporate headquarters of the Cities Service Company. Like the dedication of the Empire State Building (Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, 1930-31, a designated New York City Landmark and Interior), a year earlier, it provided a welcome moment of optimism during dark economic times. In the past six years, Doherty had been absent from the public eye due to health problems and he used this well-publicized event to mark his 62nd birthday and return as chief executive. Cities Service publicist Hill boasted:
No man, not even the first of the Astors, ever had more confidence in the enduring and increasing values of the ground upon which New York City is built than Henry L. Doherty. It is that very confidence which is reflected in Sixty Wall Tower. Into land and building were invested millions at a time when many capitalists and financers could see the future only through glasses smoked by their own fears and apprehensions. The third tallest building in the world is, therefore, the monolith of courage as well as capacity.
Approximately 200 business leaders attended the luncheon and ceremony, which included the unveiling of a bronze bust of Doherty, as well as the floodlighting of the spire. In addition, a small mirror on the balcony of the 64th floor was used to transmit his voice via “moon beam power” to radio listeners throughout the world.
At 950 feet, the Cities Service Building was higher than the 927-foot Manhattan Company Building at 40 Wall Street, and only the 1,454-foot Empire State Building and the 1,046-foot Chrysler Building stood taller. The top three floors were planned as Doherty’s private apartment and office. Earlier, he had been credited with “starting the pent-house idea” at 26 State Street and was reportedly “listed in city records” as the building’s janitor to overcome restrictions on private use. Despite such plans, Doherty never occupied the triplex and the 66th floor opened as a public observation gallery in July 1932. The 23-by-33 foot solarium featured:
special glass to admit the beneficial rays of the sun and is reached by an elevator of unusual design which disappears beneath the platform floor after discharging passengers, thus permitting unobstructed views of the metropolitan area in all directions.
Ringed by shallow outdoor terraces, there were open steel railings so that winds would clear the pavement and “nothing obstructs the gaze.” Though some midtown observatories were loftier, such as the 102nd floor of the Empire State Building and the 71st floor of the Chrysler Building, the gallery at Cities Service offered unparalleled panoramic views of New York harbor and remained accessible until at least 1939.
From the start, 60 Wall Tower was a modest success. Three thousand employees of the Cities Service Company were reportedly based here, on at least the first seven floors, and in some of the uppermost floors. The larger lower floors, where the clerical staff was mainly located, were linked by six pairs of reversible “moving staircases,” among the earliest installed in an office building. Like the double-deck elevators, this innovative feature was intended to improve circulation and reduce the number of elevator shafts. Manufactured by the Otis Elevator Company, it was reported that the escalators could move 6,000 passengers per hour and that the first six stories could be emptied in ten minutes.
Most of the upper floors were rented to law firms that benefited from the convenience of an extensive tenants-only law library on the 29th floor. In 1933, the building was described as “about two-thirds rented, in spite of having to begin business during the Depression.” Though almost a decade would pass before a 90% occupancy rate was reached, because there was no mortgage Cities Service quickly earned a profit, reporting $500,000 income in 1936. An early tenant of some renown was McGovern’s, occupying the seventh floor. Artie McGovern was a former boxer and trainer, whose clients included such athletes as Babe Ruth and well-known businessmen. Previously located on East 42nd Street, the 25,000-square-foot athletic facility incorporated a gymnasium facing Pearl Street, as well as six handball and squash courts, and areas for ping pong and golf. Reportedly, 1,000 men visited McGovern’s each day. Advertisements described it as the “World’s Largest Private Gymnasium.”
Recent History
Following the Second World War, the Cities Service Company reduced the number of staff in New York City and began to lease many of the lower floors to outside tenants, including the investment firm Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Beane, which signed a 25-year lease on ten floors in 1957. Cities Services began to market gasoline under the name CITGO in 1965 and in 1973 it announced plans to move the executive offices to Tulsa, Oklahoma, where six of the company’s operating divisions were based. About 250 employees were involved in the move. Three years later, in May 1976, the building was acquired by an insurance and financial services company, the American International Group (AIG).At this time, the pedestrian bridge at the 16th floor was removed. Three years later, a replacement, located slightly east of the original, was approved by the Board of Estimate. Connecting the 6-7th floors to the 7-8th floors of 72 Wall Street (aka 73-77 Pine Street), this sloping aluminum-clad transverse was completed in 1979. In subsequent decades, the Cities Service Building was sometimes referred to as the American International Building. During the 1990s, the exterior and lobby were refurbished. Following the financial collapse of AIG in 2008 and a subsequent bailout by the U.S. government, the building was sold in August 2009 to Sahn Eagle LLC.
Description
The Cities Service Building rises on a sloping, trapezoidal parcel bounded by Pine Street, Cedar Street, and Pearl Street. The building consists of an asymmetrical base, a slender tower that rises in a symmetrical manner from the 31st floor, and a faceted spire. The west facade is visible above the seventh floor. Viewed from the east and west, setbacks are symmetrical. The facade is mostly faced with light-colored brick and grayish limestone except for the lower part of the ground floor which is clad with polished red and black granite panels. The brick lightens in color as the elevations rise. Between the third and fourth floors, the spandrels incorporate large rosettes, made of carved limestone or terra cotta. Above the fourth story windows, the spandrels are brick, with two raised vertical bands laid over four horizontal bands. The multiple irregular setbacks vary in height and depth and are enclosed with decorative aluminum railings. The double hung windows are not historic but resemble the originals. Some terraces can be accessed through doors.
Historic: Pine Street (south) elevation: eleven bays, two entrances portals, wider east portal projects slightly, slopes down to east. First and second floor: red and black granite facing, aluminum reliefs above doors in both portals, lighting fixtures in east portal, limestone model of building between doors in east portal, aluminum spandrel reliefs between floors, single pane basement windows. Pearl Street (east) elevation: five triple-height bays, ground floor red and black granite base with single pane basement windows, aluminum reliefs between each of the 1st and 2nd story windows, transom windows; entrance to ground floor in center bay, crowned by row of identical aluminum reliefs, aluminum revolving door flanked by operable doors and fixed panes. Cedar Street (north) elevation: twelve bays, red and black granite base with single pane basement windows, aluminum reliefs above doors, two entrance portals, larger east portal with six doors, lighting fixtures, west portal with four doors, flanked by two sets of doors in adjoining bays, loading dock with multi-panel door to right of east portal, aluminum spandrel reliefs between floors
Alterations: The one-over-one aluminum sashes are non-historic and are likely to date to the 1990s. Through wall air conditioners have been installed in various places on all four elevations. Pine Street elevation: access ramp with aluminum railing, brown metal plaque to right of west entrance portal, windows replaced by horizontal metal louvers in tower and on lower floors, transoms in east portal, single pane windows and aluminum panel at base near Pearl Street, security camera in bay closest to Pearl Street, two-level aluminum footbridge with single pane glazing to east of east portal and extending over Pine Street. Pearl Street (south) elevation: basement, silver marquee above recessed entrance to right of center bay, silver frame notice board, silver lettering for “The Captain’s Ketch.” Cedar Street (north) elevation: 1st floor, center bays, infill masonry and back painted glass; various floors, horizontal metal louvers; 31st floor, machinery on west roof West elevation: machinery on “shoulder” of 31st floor, north side of 55th floor terrace, 63rd floor terrace.
- From the 2011 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report
South Carolina up to the War of Independence Continued.
Apart from rice the other profitable crop grown in the lowlands and swamps of Sth Carolina was indigo. The blue flowering Indigofera tinctoria, a member of the pea family provided dye for the expanding textile mills of England and France. Sth Carolina also had a native indigo plant, Baptisia australias, false blue indigo but it did not yield as much dye as the Indian plant. Indigo was grown in Sth Carolina from its origins in 1670 as the Jamaica and Barbados settlers had grown it in the Caribbean. But a woman, Eliza Lucas Pinckney is credited with starting the commercial industry in 1740. (One of her sons was a signer of the ratification of the US constitution.) Records however, show that much indigo was grown before then. The crop required a skilled workforce and it teamed excellently with rice as a crop as the rice was tended in spring and autumn, and the indigo in summer. The Black slaves of Sth Carolina had also grown rice in West Africa and many arrived with these agricultural skills. The Indigofera plant had to be stripped, soaked and treated to produce a cake of solid indigo dye. The industry died out in Sth Carolina around 1800. Indigo is still used to dye blue jeans but from synthetic indigo these days.
During the War of Independence more battles were fought in Sth Carolina than any other colony. Its wealth was a prize the British wanted and many wealthy planters were loyalists. Yet it was the first colony to declare independence and ratify a new state constitution. The English captured Charleston in 1780 and most of the colony. A local brigadier, Francis Marion emerged as a skilled guerrilla fighter. He had learnt these skills from the Indians whom he had fought and slaughtered during the Indian Wars around 1760. During the War of Independence he escaped capture several times by escaping with his militia into the swamps, hence his nicknamed given by the British- the Swampfox. There is a statue of Marion in the central park in Charleston opposite the Marion Hotel. Go inside to the hotel lobby to see beautiful antique furniture. The hotel restaurant is called the Swampfox.
Charleston in the Antebellum Era.
Also in the central square is a statue of Senator John Calhoun high on a stone column. It is said the statue is so high to prevent the former slaves from defacing it! But who could blame them as Calhoun was a rabid racist. He was one of many racist slave owners who dominated the Sth Carolina legislature. It enacted new slave codes in 1800 and 1820 to make manumission (freeing so slaves) almost impossible. Calhoun in Washington was the one who led the crisis about secession in 1832. Sth Carolina threaded to secede from the Union over a tariff bill. Sth Carolina and its politicians were always champions of slavery and states’ rights. Then in 1822 Denmark Vesey, a slave who had purchased his freedom before the new laws of 1820, planned a major bloodbath in Charleston. Thousands of slaves in Charleston knew about the planned uprising but eventually two ratted on Vesey and he was arrested before the uprising began. 131 slaves were charged with conspiracy and 35 hung, including Vesey. His little house in Charleston (probably not the actual one) is now a National Landmark. It was also a Sth Carolinian Congressman in 1835 who got the “gag rule” passed in Congress to stop Abolitionist pamphlets and mail going to the South. It passed in 1836 and was known as the Pinckney Resolution. It was finally rescinded in 1844 when the Northern Democrats got control of Congress. Later in 1856 it was Congressman Preston Brooks of Sth Carolina who led the attack on the pro-slavery Northerner Charles Sumner on the floor of the US Senate. Sumner (a Republican like Lincoln) was bashed with a cane whilst pro-slavery Southern friends of Brooks protected him from irate Northern Senators who could do nothing to help Charles Sumner. Sumner took over three years to recover from this attack. This was one of the finale events that polarised anti-Southern and pro-slavery abolition support in the North. Sth Carolina always led the vanguard of propaganda against the Abolitionists and against the North. But they also had much to fear. In coastal Sth Carolina slaves outnumbered whites and when the white planters retreated to Charleston for the summer season, many rural counties became 98% black slave. In the 1850s Sth Carolinians became more and more militant and not surprisingly they were the first state to vote for secession upon the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. They wanted to protect their privileged and gracious life style of which we can see remnants today in Charleston –the beautiful mansions and public buildings. In this antebellum period Charleston was extremely wealthy as the major importing and exporting port of the South. It handled the cotton from upstate and a large part of the slave market. The international slave trade was banned from 1808 but many shiploads of black slaves still entered American illegally after that date. The wealthy planting class imported their chandeliers from France, their fine furniture and porcelain from England and their silk fabrics for the ladies ball gowns from Paris. In your free afternoon you can enter some of these mansions and see theirs and their slaves’ living conditions especially at the Aiken-Rhett house.
Charleston during the Civil War.
The first shots of the Civil War were fired in Charleston Harbour by the Confederates but few shots were fired at Charleston by the Union forces. A small battle outside the city in 1862 saw the Confederates being victorious and the Unions forces retreating. That ended any immediate threat of land invasion of Charleston. Charleston Harbour had always been well protected with forts in addition to Fort Sumter in case of Spanish or British attack. The Confederates used these forts to protect the city. But the Anaconda Plan meant that from the start of the Civil War the Union naval blockade was reasonably successful. Gun runners still managed to bring supplies into Charleston from France but goods were limited. In the latter stages of the Civil War, Charleston like other areas of the South was basically without food for whites or slaves. People were starving. Yet despite this in the final year of the Civil War the Charlestonians still had their grand balls for the season with French ball gowns smuggled into the city when some were starving. At the same time General Vance with his North Carolina Army was enduring the freezing winter of northern Virginia with his troops in thread bare uniforms and worn boots. But resources from Sth Carolina were not advanced to help the troops from North Carolina. They were kept aside for Sth Carolina. This was one of the many great weaknesses of the Confederacy- blind obsession with states’ rights. The continuing extravagances of the Charlestonian elite also angered starving Southerners and added to the decline in morale in the South. In February 1865 when General Sherman advanced towards Charleston from Savannah the Confederate General Beauregard, ordered the evacuation of Confederate troops from Charleston. The Mayor of Charleston was then able to surrender to Sherman and avoid the city being bombarded or destroyed. We must be thankful for that and the decision of the ladies of Charleston to preserve as many historic houses as they could. They began this around 1955.
© yohanes.budiyanto, 2014
HISTORY
Armani Hotel Milan is the brainchild of one of the world's most prominent living designers of our time, Giorgio Armani. As the owner of one of the most profitable global fashion empires in the world, Armani is one true visionary and trend-setter. He is among the few Italian designers that put Milan on the global fashion map. Since the debut in 1975, the Armani empire has expanded and diversified from fashion to food (pioneered with Emporio Armani Cafe), beauty (Beauty and fragrance range in collaboration with L'oreal), furniture / home furnishings (Armani Casa), flower (Armani Fiori), confectionary (Armani Dolci), and now luxury hotels.
The very first Armani Hotel opened on 27th April 2010 in Dubai within the tallest structure in the world at 828m, the Burj Khalifa. It was probably a surprising move for some that Armani's debut hotel was outside his native hometown of Milan, -unlike the Bvlgari with its eponymous Bvlgari Hotel Milano back in May 2004; but as the concept is a joint venture with one of the world's leading property developers, EMAAR, so it is befitting that the first hotel opened within the group's flagship property in Dubai.
Armani Hotel Milano was scheduled to open not long after Dubai; but due to series of delays, the hotel finally opened on 10th November 2011 atop Armani's flagship building on Via Manzoni 31. The 7 storey building circa 1937 is a landmark in the area, and it is interesting to note that the original architect (Enrico Griffini) designed the building to shape like the word "A" from above (check it out on Goggle Map), -coincidentally fits Armani's initial.
LOCATION
Roberto Cavalli may have dubbed the hotel building a psychiatric hospital; but no one can deny its strategic location at the apex of Milan's Quadrilatero della Mode, the Via Monte Napoleone fashion district, -Milan's answer to Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré in Paris. The area surrounding Via Monte Napoleone, Sant' Andrea, Gesu, Borgospesso, Santo Spirito and della Spiga is home to the flagship presence of almost all of Italian and International luxury fashion brands, including Bvlgari, Bottega Veneta, Gucci, Prada, Salvatore Ferragamo, Ermenegildo Zegna, Versace, Fendi, Etro, Missoni, Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Dior, Valentino, St. Laurent, Chanel and Acqua di Parma to name just a few. This is the ultimate destination for shopaholics, and with the prices of luxury goods here considerably lower than Asia, it is an absolute crime to go home empty handed. It comes at no surprise that during Milan's Fashion Week, top hotels around the area are full sold out (including Four Seasons at Via Gesu; Grand Hotel et de Milan next to Armani; and the Bvlgari), and Armani remains a popular choice.
ROOMS:
Each of Armani's 95 guestrooms and suites are designed by Re Giorgio (King Giorgio, as the Italian press calls him) with his signature contemporary and minimalistic style. The concept are almost similar with sister property in Dubai, but the size and proportion in Milan is more intimate, but slightly more fashionable.
Most rooms have its own circular "mini" vestibule on the entrance, which is a replica from the giant vestibule at the 235m2 Signature Suite at Armani Dubai. While Dubai has the space and looks dramatic due to its proportion, the vestibule in Milan seems rather forced. It is extremely dark and small, giving an almost claustrophobic feeling; and the enclosed circular shape ironically exudes a feeling of stepping into a shower stall. My Suite was surprisingly rather small thanks to the partitions that connects the living, bed and bathroom. In fact, I kept bumping the tables all the time. The living area is adorned with Armani Casa furniture, but sadly the bulky two-seater sofa is more of "Function follows Form" as it lacks the ergonomics. Similarly, the work / study area is not properly designed as the work desk is part of the main cabinet housing the minibars, and is very small and narrow, so when they force to put both the phone and the portable sound dock system in, there is hardly any space to put anything else. The plugs are not properly designed, -in fact, it is certainly not designed for Apple, so I ended up plugging them on the coffee machine!. The area is also so narrow that the chair keeps bumping on the rugs behind. Likewise, the wardrobe area is sandwiched between the Living and Bedroom chambers, so the layout is not properly designed for ergonomics.
On the positive note, the marble bathroom is bright, airy and well-planned. It comes with twin basins; bathtub; separate shower and WC stalls (complete with bidet); and a large window that allows plenty of sunlight during the day.
Armani has invested a lot for in-room technology, and each rooms has all the basics: electric curtain, LCD TV, mood lighting, electronic DND sign, and sophisticated TV entertainment system. The icing on the cake is the detection system for guests outside the room, which will be alerted by prompt message on the TV. While it is great, it falls short from what sister in Dubai can do: you can actually spy guests outside from a small dedicated screen on your TV. This is probably the only hotel in the world with such capability, not even The Peninsula has it.
Armani also wins big with in-room amenities. Internet access is free within the hotel, and so is the Mini-bar. Soft drinks, juices, waters and snacks are free, but alcohols are chargeable. Most of them are packed with Armani logo (including the 1L bottled water). As expected, bathroom amenities are by Armani Prive, and each are generously supplied in full size 150ml bottles. The welcome fruit basket was too good to be true that the fruits looked more like a wax replica. It was that perfect.
ROOM TO BOOK:
Open-plan Premier Room is the best room to choose as it appears more spacious than the other room layouts in the same category. As for suite, the Executive Suite is the best option outside the Signature and top suites as the size is generous, and each areas of the living, bed and bathrooms are well designed. For the ultimate in luxury, the two duplex Signature Suites at 203m2 comes with a choice of housing either a private Cinema Room with 100" LCD TV, or a Fitness room.
DINING:
There is only one restaurant inside the hotel, and it is Italian. Both the restaurant and the lounge are located on the Lobby level and are all interconnected. Il Ristorante serves haute Italian cuisine with honest, good food and simple presentation, cohesive to the overall Armani concept and style. Breakfast is also served here with semi buffet presentation. While the selection is limited, all food are of good quality and beautifully presented.
More food options are available downstairs at Armani / NOBU and Emporio Armani Cafe at the retail podium of Armani Via Manzoni 31.
LEISURE:
For leisure, head to the top floor of the hotel for Armani / Spa. The 1,150m2 space is a heaven and private sanctuary away from the chaotic Milan, complete with individual treatment rooms, multiple finnish sauna and steam baths cubicle (all with views); and a large unisex jacuzzi on the corner with beautiful view of the city. There is no swimming pool within the hotel, and many people are mixed up with the "large" jacuzzi.
X-FACTOR:
Armani-branded amenities; complimentary minibar; Armani in-room technology; Rooftop pool with Milan city view; and best location for shopaholics.
SERVICE:
Armani takes pride in creating a unique, custom made hotel experiences, including the introduction of the Lifestyle Managers, who are basically the point of contact for the guests, and handled almost everything from pre-arrival to check-in, concierge, and any other assistance during the stay. I have had prior experience with these esteem team members back in 2011 at the Armani Dubai and they were excellent, as their presence were very strong, and they did such an exceptional job running the extra mile for guests' satisfaction.
Unfortunately, I could not say the same with Milan. First of all, these Lifestyle Managers seemed to be absent during the stay; and secondly, the service at the hotel was extremely inconsistent. Even at the reception, I did not get a good vibe from some of the staffs as there seemed to be either an attitude problem or lack of experience. When escorted to the suite, I was so disappointed with the size and the two so-called "Lifestyle Managers" seemed to be doing nothing, instead of the team in Dubai who relentlessly run the extra mile not only to satisfy, but exceed guests' expectation. They have researched the guest profile well and perfectly understood what was expected and required. Milan pretty much did not care; and during check-out when I was asked for feedback and gave a hint of disappointment, not only the staff was surprised (they thought they were #1), they took it to the heart and became a bit defensive. That was when they haven't done their research well. Others might be impressed by Armani Milan, but for my case, not even the Four Seasons George V managed to impress me that much.
The ladies who served as receptionists to the Bar are the ones guests will see upon arriving at the sky Lobby from the lift; and they were the absolute eye sore. Not only they were cold to passing guests, they even pretended not to look. They should really be moved to the housekeeping and laundry department where they belong, as interaction with guests are minimal. Likewise, the service at the Emporio Armani Cafe (not part of the hotel) was so hostile that I left only two minutes after sitting there. The staffs were literally barking and pointing guests for empty seats. There was hardly any service, and I had an absolute better service at McDonald's and KFC (and plenty of genuine smile). After this ordeal, I refused to spend any more of my Euros at Armani (I intended to try all food outlets within the premise, including Armani Nobu and Emporio Armani Cafe), and instead headed down to the Michelin starred Trussardi alla Scala ten minutes away for a sumptuous lunch where I belong.
That said, the service at Armani / Ristorante was excellent. During the dinner, service was overall good; but during breakfast, it was exceptional. One of the staffs even ensured that they are here for the guests and will do anything for guest's satisfaction. This is the kind of service I expected from Armani. Sadly, this was all before the boycott.
VERDICT:
Armani Hotel Milano is a fashionable hotel at the most perfect location for shopping and the Fashion Week in Milan. Service was inconsistent; and there was a certain pressure working with Armani concept, and unfortunately it showed. The lifestyle managers proved to be a very demanding job that it even took a toll at Armani Dubai, as it experienced a very high staff turnovers during its first six months after opening. I have always rated Armani Hotels at the top of the hotel stratosphere, together with Bvlgari and Amanresorts; but Armani Milan is sadly under par from the high standard I experienced at Armani Dubai; so Bvlgari is definitely in a different league. All Bvlgari Hotels (Milan, London and Bali) has been very consistent in delivering the highest standard and the most personalized service. That said, Armani Milano still scored pretty high collectively, despite being marred by inconsistent service. Personally, the Bvlgari is my top choice in Milan.
PERSONAL RATING:
1. Room: 90
2. Bathroom: 95
3. Bed: 95
4. Service: 75
5. In-room Tech: 95
6. In-room Amenities: 100
7. Architecture & Design: 90
8. Food: 85
9. View: 75
10. Pool: N/A
11. Wellness: 90
12. Location: 95
13. Value: 95
Overall: 90.00
Compare with Milan's other top hotels:
My #1 ALL TIME FAVORITE HOTEL
LANDMARK MANDARIN ORIENTAL, HONG KONG: 95.38
ARMANI HOTEL MILANO
Via Manzoni 31, Milan
Hotel Manager: Lisa Signoretti
Executive Chef: Giandomenico Melandri
Architect (circa 1937): Enrico A. Griffini
Concept Designer: Giorgio Armani
Hotel Opening Date: 10 November 2011
Notable owners: Giorgio Armani and EMAAR Properties, Dubai
Total Rooms & Suites: 95 (including 23 Deluxe and 40 Premiere Rooms)
Total Suites: 32 Suites (including 20 Classic and 6 Executive Suites
Signature Suites: 110m2 Ambassador Suite; and 203m2 Signature Suite)
Top Suites: Milano Suite and Presidential Suite (200m2)
Bathroom Amenities: Armani Prive
Restaurants: Armani / Ristorante: Italian Fine Dining
Bars and Lounges: Armani / Lounge
Meeting & Banquets: 52m2 Meeting Room (50 guests), and 2 Boardrooms at 28m2 (up to 12 guests)
Health & Leisure: 24 hours gym & Armani / Spa with heated plunge pool, finnish sauna, steam bath and ice cascade
milan.armanihotels.com
Check out ARMANI HOTEL DUBAI
Insights on TiO2 costing and profitability aspects — A lever to lead procurement negotiations
Conventionally, large titanium dioxide (TiO2) volume buyers fail to realize the difference between potential cost savings and their actual cost savings. Another prevalent scenario is faced when...
advantage-procurement.com/tio2-costing-and-profitability-...
Engraving by John Conde from a 1792 picture by John Russell.
From Captain Bligh’s Second Voyage to the South Sea, Ida Lee, 1920
Broken up following the American Revolution of 1775-83 was the profitable and long standing trade in which, among other things, Philadelphia, New York, and other North American ports sent grain and flour to feed the slaves in Jamaica, Barbados, and other sugar islands, getting in exchange sugar and rum. The British, at the close of the war, put an end to that arrangement, to the distress of the Americans and even more so to the sugar islands, where slave holders found it difficult to feed their slaves. Joseph Banks had been on Captain Cook’s 1768 to 1771 Endeavour Voyage to the Pacific and had seen the value of breadfruit as a highly productive food source. As Colonial administrators and plantation owners called for the introduction of this plant to the Caribbean Banks, who also had business interests in the West Indies, and in 1778 had become the President of the Royal Society, provided a cash bounty and gold medal for success in taking a thousand or so young breadfruit plants to provide a cheaper high energy alternative to grain to feed the West Indian slaves and lobbied his friends in government and the Admiralty to sponsor a British Naval expedition to Tahiti. He considered Bligh as the best person to head such a project since Bligh had experience in the Pacific, as Sailing Master on Cook’s third voyage on the Resolution, and following Cooks’ death in Hawaii in February 1779 had navigated HMS Resolution back to England. Being highly influential in Court circles and having access to the king, Banks had no difficulties in getting his desires realized.
On 23rd December 1787 His Majesty's Armed Vessel Bounty proceeded to the South Pacific to fulfil this task, arriving in Tahiti in October 1788. Bounty remained there for five months during which over 1000 plants were collected, potted and transferred to the ship. In April 1789, within a month of leaving, many of the crew mutinied. Cast adrift in a lifeboat with 18 members of his crew, and with food sufficient only for a week, Bligh navigated through high seas and storms over a period of 48 days drawing on his memory of the few charts he had seen of the mostly uncharted waters. His completion of the 3,618-mile voyage to safety in Timor in June 1789 is still regarded as perhaps the most outstanding feat of seamanship and navigation ever conducted in a small boat. For comparison Shackleton’s epic journey from Elephant Island to South Georgia in April 1916 was 800 miles and took 15 days. www.flickr.com/photos/30593522@N05/4937554943/in/set-7215...
The Bounty with the remaining nine mutineers led by Fletcher Christian, arrived at Pitcairn Island in January 1790. Bligh on the Dutch East Indiaman Vlijt returned via the Cape of Good Hope and Holland then on to England in March 1790 where he was court-martialed but acquitted.
In February 1791 Bligh was again appointed to command a second expedition to transfer breadfruit from Tahiti to the West Indies. This time, Bligh’s experiences on the first voyage, led to his ship HMS Providence, being better equipped and manned, including a party of Marines and Providence was accompanied by HMS Assistant. The ships left Spithead on 3 August 1791 and arrived at Tahiti on 9 April 1792. They remained until July and left with over 2600 breadfruit plants. They arrived at St Helena in December and deposited some of the plants, before continuing on to the West Indies.
Bligh’s 10 day visit is described in “Captain Bligh’s Second Voyage to the South Sea”, Ida Lee, 1920
St. Helena was seen from the masthead at daylight on December 17th, 9 leagues distant. Early in the morning while the ships were on their way to the anchorage the second lieutenant was sent off in the launch to wait on the Governor. At 9.30 the vessels came abreast of the 4th Battery, where they were saluted with an equal number. An hour later after having spent ten weeks at sea, they anchored half a mile from the shore, St. James Church Tower and the Flag Staff both South by West.
“At noon after I anchored an officer was sent from the Governor, Lt. -Colonel Broke (sic) to welcome us. I landed at 1 o'clock when I was saluted with 13 guns, and the Governor received me. In my interview with him I informed him of my orders to give into his care 10 breadfruit plants, and one of every kind (of which I had five), as would secure to the island a lasting supply of this valuable fruit which our most gracious King had ordered to be planted there. Colonel Broke (sic) expressed great gratitude, and the principal plants were taken to a valley near his residence called Plantation House, and the rest to James's Valley. On the 23rd I saw the whole landed and planted; one plant was given to Major Robson, Lt. -Governor, and one to Mr. Rangham, the first in Council. I also left a quantity of mountain rice seed here. The Peeah (Sago) was the only plant that required a particular description. I therefore took our Otaheitan friends to the Governor's House where they made a pudding of the prepared part of its root, some of which I had brought from Otaheite." Writing of St. Helena, Captain Bligh says: “Few places look more unhealthy when sailing along its burnt-up cliffs huge masses of rock fit only to resist the sea, yet few places are more healthy. The inhabitants are not like other Europeans who live in the Torrid Zone, but have good constitutions the women being fair and pretty.
James Town, the capital, lies in a deep and narrow valley, and it is little more than one long street of houses; these are built after our English fashion, most of them having thatched roofs. Lodgings are scarce, so I was fortunate in finding rooms with Captain Statham in a well-regulated house at the common rate of twelve shillings a day. The Otaheitans were delighted with what they saw here, as Colonel Brooke showed them kind attention, had them to stay at his house, and gave them each a suit of red clothes." A letter from the Governor and Council of St. Helena was sent to Captain Bligh before he left conveying thanks for the gifts which the recipients declared "had impressed their minds with the warmest gratitude towards His Majesty for his goodness and attention for the welfare of his subjects"; while the sight of the ships " had raised in them an inexpressible degree of wonder and delight to contemplate a floating garden transported in luxuriance from one extremity of the world to the other " All needful refreshment was taken on board, and the ships left St. Helena on December 27th, receiving the salute from the battery on Ladder Hill as they sailed out of the harbour.
Janisch’s Extracts From The St Helena Records gives different dates.
1792 Dec. 24.—Captain Bligh at St. Helena in H.M.S. Providence with Bread fruit trees, Mango and various other plants enumerated.
1792 Dec. 29.—Capt. Bligh sent on shore to us a variety of Trees and Plants the productions of the South Seas and the Island of Timor.
Arriving at St Vincent on 23 January 1793 they continued to Jamaica where they remained until June. After a short delay caused by the outbreak of war with France, they returned to Britain on 7 August and were able to send a cargo of plants to Kew Gardens. However, Bligh returned home to a tarnished reputation since, during his absence, the trial of the Bounty mutineers had taken place and examples of his hot temper had been circulated. He was placed on half pay and remained unemployed for eighteen months. Banks remained a faithful patron of Bligh’s throughout the captain’s career and was instrumental in arranging for Bligh’s appointment as Governor of New South Wales in 1805.
Alas, bread-fruit, which many believed would be an inexpensive miracle food to feed slaves in the Caribbean, turned out to be a total disaster in that regard. Nobody would eat it because they didn't like its taste and even the plants left on St Helena died from lack of attention. Although Bligh won the Royal Society medal for his efforts his two trips to the South Pacific had proven economic failures.
As reported in The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge 1832 article “The Bread Fruit” “After all the peril, hardship, and expense thus incurred, the bread-fruit tree has not, hitherto at least, answered the expectations that were entertained. The banana is more easily and cheaply cultivated, comes into bearing much sooner after being planted, bears more abundantly, and is better relished by the negroes. The mode of propagating the bread-fruit is not, indeed, difficult; for the planter has only to lay bare one of the roots, and mound it with a spade, and in a short space a shoot comes up, which is soon fit for removal. Europeans are much fonder of the bread-fruit than negroes. They consider it as a sort of dainty, and use it either as bread or in puddings. When roasted in the oven, the taste of it resembles that of a potato, but it is not so mealy as a good one.”
Bligh died in London in December 1817 and is buried in St Mary's Churchyard Lambeth where his tomb is topped by a breadfruit.
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Monocoupe 110 Special:
Air show pilot and aerobatic champion W. W. "Woody" Edmondson thrilled audiences with his Monocoupe 110 Special throughout the 1940s. Edmondson, who named the airplane Little Butch for its bulldog-like appearance, placed second to "Bevo" Howard and his Bücker Jungmeister in the 1946 and '47 American Aerobatic Championships, but he won the first International Aerobatic Championship in 1948.
The Monocoupe 110 Special was a clipped-wing version of the 110, part of a line that began with Don Luscombe's Mono 22 and continued with the 70, 90, and 110 models. The sport coupes of the 1930s, these fast and maneuverable aircraft were ideal for racers Phoebe Omlie and Johnny Livingston. Ken Hyde of Warrenton, Virginia, restored Little Butch prior to its donation to the Smithsonian.
Gift of John J. McCulloch
Manufacturer:
Date:
1941
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Dimensions:
Wingspan: 6.9 m (23 ft.)
Length: 6.2 m (20 ft. 4 in.)
Height: 2.1 m (6 ft. 11 in.)
Weight, empty: 449 kg (991 lbs.)
Weight, gross: 730 kg (1,611 lbs.)
Top speed: 313 km/h (195 mph)
Engine: Warner 185, 200 hp
Materials:
Fuselage: steel tube with fabric cover Physical Description:High-wing, 2-seat, 1940's monoplane. Warner Super Scarab 185, 200hp engine. Red with white trim. Clipped wings
• • • • •
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Concorde, Fox Alpha, Air France:
The first supersonic airliner to enter service, the Concorde flew thousands of passengers across the Atlantic at twice the speed of sound for over 25 years. Designed and built by Aérospatiale of France and the British Aviation Corporation, the graceful Concorde was a stunning technological achievement that could not overcome serious economic problems.
In 1976 Air France and British Airways jointly inaugurated Concorde service to destinations around the globe. Carrying up to 100 passengers in great comfort, the Concorde catered to first class passengers for whom speed was critical. It could cross the Atlantic in fewer than four hours - half the time of a conventional jet airliner. However its high operating costs resulted in very high fares that limited the number of passengers who could afford to fly it. These problems and a shrinking market eventually forced the reduction of service until all Concordes were retired in 2003.
In 1989, Air France signed a letter of agreement to donate a Concorde to the National Air and Space Museum upon the aircraft's retirement. On June 12, 2003, Air France honored that agreement, donating Concorde F-BVFA to the Museum upon the completion of its last flight. This aircraft was the first Air France Concorde to open service to Rio de Janeiro, Washington, D.C., and New York and had flown 17,824 hours.
Gift of Air France.
Manufacturer:
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale
Dimensions:
Wingspan: 25.56 m (83 ft 10 in)
Length: 61.66 m (202 ft 3 in)
Height: 11.3 m (37 ft 1 in)
Weight, empty: 79,265 kg (174,750 lb)
Weight, gross: 181,435 kg (400,000 lb)
Top speed: 2,179 km/h (1350 mph)
Engine: Four Rolls-Royce/SNECMA Olympus 593 Mk 602, 17,259 kg (38,050 lb) thrust each
Manufacturer: Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale, Paris, France, and British Aircraft Corporation, London, United Kingdom
Physical Description:
Aircaft Serial Number: 205. Including four (4) engines, bearing respectively the serial number: CBE066, CBE062, CBE086 and CBE085.
Also included, aircraft plaque: "AIR FRANCE Lorsque viendra le jour d'exposer Concorde dans un musee, la Smithsonian Institution a dores et deja choisi, pour le Musee de l'Air et de l'Espace de Washington, un appariel portant le couleurs d'Air France."
• • • • •
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Boeing 367-80 Jet Transport:
On July 15, 1954, a graceful, swept-winged aircraft, bedecked in brown and yellow paint and powered by four revolutionary new engines first took to the sky above Seattle. Built by the Boeing Aircraft Company, the 367-80, better known as the Dash 80, would come to revolutionize commercial air transportation when its developed version entered service as the famous Boeing 707, America's first jet airliner.
In the early 1950s, Boeing had begun to study the possibility of creating a jet-powered military transport and tanker to complement the new generation of Boeing jet bombers entering service with the U.S. Air Force. When the Air Force showed no interest, Boeing invested $16 million of its own capital to build a prototype jet transport in a daring gamble that the airlines and the Air Force would buy it once the aircraft had flown and proven itself. As Boeing had done with the B-17, it risked the company on one roll of the dice and won.
Boeing engineers had initially based the jet transport on studies of improved designs of the Model 367, better known to the public as the C-97 piston-engined transport and aerial tanker. By the time Boeing progressed to the 80th iteration, the design bore no resemblance to the C-97 but, for security reasons, Boeing decided to let the jet project be known as the 367-80.
Work proceeded quickly after the formal start of the project on May 20, 1952. The 367-80 mated a large cabin based on the dimensions of the C-97 with the 35-degree swept-wing design based on the wings of the B-47 and B-52 but considerably stiffer and incorporating a pronounced dihedral. The wings were mounted low on the fuselage and incorporated high-speed and low-speed ailerons as well as a sophisticated flap and spoiler system. Four Pratt & Whitney JT3 turbojet engines, each producing 10,000 pounds of thrust, were mounted on struts beneath the wings.
Upon the Dash 80's first flight on July 15, 1954, (the 34th anniversary of the founding of the Boeing Company) Boeing clearly had a winner. Flying 100 miles per hour faster than the de Havilland Comet and significantly larger, the new Boeing had a maximum range of more than 3,500 miles. As hoped, the Air Force bought 29 examples of the design as a tanker/transport after they convinced Boeing to widen the design by 12 inches. Satisfied, the Air Force designated it the KC-135A. A total of 732 KC-135s were built.
Quickly Boeing turned its attention to selling the airline industry on this new jet transport. Clearly the industry was impressed with the capabilities of the prototype 707 but never more so than at the Gold Cup hydroplane races held on Lake Washington in Seattle, in August 1955. During the festivities surrounding this event, Boeing had gathered many airline representatives to enjoy the competition and witness a fly past of the new Dash 80. To the audience's intense delight and Boeing's profound shock, test pilot Alvin "Tex" Johnston barrel-rolled the Dash 80 over the lake in full view of thousands of astonished spectators. Johnston vividly displayed the superior strength and performance of this new jet, readily convincing the airline industry to buy this new airliner.
In searching for a market, Boeing found a ready customer in Pan American Airway's president Juan Trippe. Trippe had been spending much of his time searching for a suitable jet airliner to enable his pioneering company to maintain its leadership in international air travel. Working with Boeing, Trippe overcame Boeing's resistance to widening the Dash-80 design, now known as the 707, to seat six passengers in each seat row rather than five. Trippe did so by placing an order with Boeing for 20 707s but also ordering 25 of Douglas's competing DC-8, which had yet to fly but could accommodate six-abreast seating. At Pan Am's insistence, the 707 was made four inches wider than the Dash 80 so that it could carry 160 passengers six-abreast. The wider fuselage developed for the 707 became the standard design for all of Boeing's subsequent narrow-body airliners.
Although the British de Havilland D.H. 106 Comet and the Soviet Tupolev Tu-104 entered service earlier, the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 were bigger, faster, had greater range, and were more profitable to fly. In October 1958 Pan American ushered the jet age into the United States when it opened international service with the Boeing 707 in October 1958. National Airlines inaugurated domestic jet service two months later using a 707-120 borrowed from Pan Am. American Airlines flew the first domestic 707 jet service with its own aircraft in January 1959. American set a new speed mark when it opened the first regularly-scheduled transcontinental jet service in 1959. Subsequent nonstop flights between New York and San Francisco took only 5 hours - 3 hours less than by the piston-engine DC-7. The one-way fare, including a $10 surcharge for jet service, was $115.50, or $231 round trip. The flight was almost 40 percent faster and almost 25 percent cheaper than flying by piston-engine airliners. The consequent surge of traffic demand was substantial.
The 707 was originally designed for transcontinental or one-stop transatlantic range. But modified with extra fuel tanks and more efficient turbofan engines, the 707-300 Intercontinental series aircraft could fly nonstop across the Atlantic with full payload under any conditions. Boeing built 855 707s, of which 725 were bought by airlines worldwide.
Having launched the Boeing Company into the commercial jet age, the Dash 80 soldiered on as a highly successful experimental aircraft. Until its retirement in 1972, the Dash 80 tested numerous advanced systems, many of which were incorporated into later generations of jet transports. At one point, the Dash 80 carried three different engine types in its four nacelles. Serving as a test bed for the new 727, the Dash 80 was briefly equipped with a fifth engine mounted on the rear fuselage. Engineers also modified the wing in planform and contour to study the effects of different airfoil shapes. Numerous flap configurations were also fitted including a highly sophisticated system of "blown" flaps which redirected engine exhaust over the flaps to increase lift at low speeds. Fin height and horizontal stabilizer width was later increased and at one point, a special multiple wheel low pressure landing gear was fitted to test the feasibility of operating future heavy military transports from unprepared landing fields.
After a long and distinguished career, the Boeing 367-80 was finally retired and donated to the Smithsonian in 1972. At present, the aircraft is installated at the National Air and Space Museum's new facility at Washington Dulles International Airport.
Gift of the Boeing Company
Manufacturer:
Date:
1954
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Dimensions:
Height 19' 2": Length 73' 10": Wing Span 129' 8": Weight 33,279 lbs.
Physical Description:
Prototype Boeing 707; yellow and brown.
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Grumman G-22 "Gulfhawk II":
One of the most exciting aerobatic aircraft of the 1930s and '40s, the Grumman Gulfhawk II was built for retired naval aviator and air show pilot Al Williams. As head of the Gulf Oil Company's aviation department, Williams flew in military and civilian air shows around the country, performing precision aerobatics and dive-bombing maneuvers to promote military aviation during the interwar years.
The sturdy civilian biplane, with its strong aluminum monocoque fuselage and Wright Cyclone engine, nearly matched the Grumman F3F standard Navy fighter, which was operational at the time. It took its orange paint scheme from Williams' Curtiss 1A Gulfhawk, also in the Smithsonian's collection. Williams personally piloted the Gulfhawk II on its last flight in 1948 to Washington's National Airport.
Gift of Gulf Oil Corporation
Manufacturer:
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation
Date:
1936
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Dimensions:
Wingspan: 8.7 m (28 ft 7 in)
Length: 7 m (23 ft)
Height: 3.1 m (10 ft)
Weight, aerobatic: 1,625 kg (3,583 lb)
Weight, gross: 1,903 kg (4,195 lb)
Top speed: 467 km/h (290 mph)
Engine: Wright Cyclone R-1820-G1, 1,000 hp
Materials:
Fuselage: steel tube with aluminum alloy
Wings: aluminum spars and ribs with fabric cover
Physical Description:
NR1050. Aerobatic biplane flown by Major Alford "Al" Williams as demonstration aircraft for Gulf Oil Company. Similar to Grumman F3F single-seat fighter aircraft flown by the U.S. Navy. Wright Cyclone R-1820-G1 engine, 1000 hp.
• • • • •
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Boeing 367-80 Jet Transport:
On July 15, 1954, a graceful, swept-winged aircraft, bedecked in brown and yellow paint and powered by four revolutionary new engines first took to the sky above Seattle. Built by the Boeing Aircraft Company, the 367-80, better known as the Dash 80, would come to revolutionize commercial air transportation when its developed version entered service as the famous Boeing 707, America's first jet airliner.
In the early 1950s, Boeing had begun to study the possibility of creating a jet-powered military transport and tanker to complement the new generation of Boeing jet bombers entering service with the U.S. Air Force. When the Air Force showed no interest, Boeing invested $16 million of its own capital to build a prototype jet transport in a daring gamble that the airlines and the Air Force would buy it once the aircraft had flown and proven itself. As Boeing had done with the B-17, it risked the company on one roll of the dice and won.
Boeing engineers had initially based the jet transport on studies of improved designs of the Model 367, better known to the public as the C-97 piston-engined transport and aerial tanker. By the time Boeing progressed to the 80th iteration, the design bore no resemblance to the C-97 but, for security reasons, Boeing decided to let the jet project be known as the 367-80.
Work proceeded quickly after the formal start of the project on May 20, 1952. The 367-80 mated a large cabin based on the dimensions of the C-97 with the 35-degree swept-wing design based on the wings of the B-47 and B-52 but considerably stiffer and incorporating a pronounced dihedral. The wings were mounted low on the fuselage and incorporated high-speed and low-speed ailerons as well as a sophisticated flap and spoiler system. Four Pratt & Whitney JT3 turbojet engines, each producing 10,000 pounds of thrust, were mounted on struts beneath the wings.
Upon the Dash 80's first flight on July 15, 1954, (the 34th anniversary of the founding of the Boeing Company) Boeing clearly had a winner. Flying 100 miles per hour faster than the de Havilland Comet and significantly larger, the new Boeing had a maximum range of more than 3,500 miles. As hoped, the Air Force bought 29 examples of the design as a tanker/transport after they convinced Boeing to widen the design by 12 inches. Satisfied, the Air Force designated it the KC-135A. A total of 732 KC-135s were built.
Quickly Boeing turned its attention to selling the airline industry on this new jet transport. Clearly the industry was impressed with the capabilities of the prototype 707 but never more so than at the Gold Cup hydroplane races held on Lake Washington in Seattle, in August 1955. During the festivities surrounding this event, Boeing had gathered many airline representatives to enjoy the competition and witness a fly past of the new Dash 80. To the audience's intense delight and Boeing's profound shock, test pilot Alvin "Tex" Johnston barrel-rolled the Dash 80 over the lake in full view of thousands of astonished spectators. Johnston vividly displayed the superior strength and performance of this new jet, readily convincing the airline industry to buy this new airliner.
In searching for a market, Boeing found a ready customer in Pan American Airway's president Juan Trippe. Trippe had been spending much of his time searching for a suitable jet airliner to enable his pioneering company to maintain its leadership in international air travel. Working with Boeing, Trippe overcame Boeing's resistance to widening the Dash-80 design, now known as the 707, to seat six passengers in each seat row rather than five. Trippe did so by placing an order with Boeing for 20 707s but also ordering 25 of Douglas's competing DC-8, which had yet to fly but could accommodate six-abreast seating. At Pan Am's insistence, the 707 was made four inches wider than the Dash 80 so that it could carry 160 passengers six-abreast. The wider fuselage developed for the 707 became the standard design for all of Boeing's subsequent narrow-body airliners.
Although the British de Havilland D.H. 106 Comet and the Soviet Tupolev Tu-104 entered service earlier, the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 were bigger, faster, had greater range, and were more profitable to fly. In October 1958 Pan American ushered the jet age into the United States when it opened international service with the Boeing 707 in October 1958. National Airlines inaugurated domestic jet service two months later using a 707-120 borrowed from Pan Am. American Airlines flew the first domestic 707 jet service with its own aircraft in January 1959. American set a new speed mark when it opened the first regularly-scheduled transcontinental jet service in 1959. Subsequent nonstop flights between New York and San Francisco took only 5 hours - 3 hours less than by the piston-engine DC-7. The one-way fare, including a $10 surcharge for jet service, was $115.50, or $231 round trip. The flight was almost 40 percent faster and almost 25 percent cheaper than flying by piston-engine airliners. The consequent surge of traffic demand was substantial.
The 707 was originally designed for transcontinental or one-stop transatlantic range. But modified with extra fuel tanks and more efficient turbofan engines, the 707-300 Intercontinental series aircraft could fly nonstop across the Atlantic with full payload under any conditions. Boeing built 855 707s, of which 725 were bought by airlines worldwide.
Having launched the Boeing Company into the commercial jet age, the Dash 80 soldiered on as a highly successful experimental aircraft. Until its retirement in 1972, the Dash 80 tested numerous advanced systems, many of which were incorporated into later generations of jet transports. At one point, the Dash 80 carried three different engine types in its four nacelles. Serving as a test bed for the new 727, the Dash 80 was briefly equipped with a fifth engine mounted on the rear fuselage. Engineers also modified the wing in planform and contour to study the effects of different airfoil shapes. Numerous flap configurations were also fitted including a highly sophisticated system of "blown" flaps which redirected engine exhaust over the flaps to increase lift at low speeds. Fin height and horizontal stabilizer width was later increased and at one point, a special multiple wheel low pressure landing gear was fitted to test the feasibility of operating future heavy military transports from unprepared landing fields.
After a long and distinguished career, the Boeing 367-80 was finally retired and donated to the Smithsonian in 1972. At present, the aircraft is installated at the National Air and Space Museum's new facility at Washington Dulles International Airport.
Gift of the Boeing Company
Manufacturer:
Date:
1954
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Dimensions:
Height 19' 2": Length 73' 10": Wing Span 129' 8": Weight 33,279 lbs.
Physical Description:
Prototype Boeing 707; yellow and brown.
• • • • •
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Concorde, Fox Alpha, Air France:
The first supersonic airliner to enter service, the Concorde flew thousands of passengers across the Atlantic at twice the speed of sound for over 25 years. Designed and built by Aérospatiale of France and the British Aviation Corporation, the graceful Concorde was a stunning technological achievement that could not overcome serious economic problems.
In 1976 Air France and British Airways jointly inaugurated Concorde service to destinations around the globe. Carrying up to 100 passengers in great comfort, the Concorde catered to first class passengers for whom speed was critical. It could cross the Atlantic in fewer than four hours - half the time of a conventional jet airliner. However its high operating costs resulted in very high fares that limited the number of passengers who could afford to fly it. These problems and a shrinking market eventually forced the reduction of service until all Concordes were retired in 2003.
In 1989, Air France signed a letter of agreement to donate a Concorde to the National Air and Space Museum upon the aircraft's retirement. On June 12, 2003, Air France honored that agreement, donating Concorde F-BVFA to the Museum upon the completion of its last flight. This aircraft was the first Air France Concorde to open service to Rio de Janeiro, Washington, D.C., and New York and had flown 17,824 hours.
Gift of Air France.
Manufacturer:
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale
Dimensions:
Wingspan: 25.56 m (83 ft 10 in)
Length: 61.66 m (202 ft 3 in)
Height: 11.3 m (37 ft 1 in)
Weight, empty: 79,265 kg (174,750 lb)
Weight, gross: 181,435 kg (400,000 lb)
Top speed: 2,179 km/h (1350 mph)
Engine: Four Rolls-Royce/SNECMA Olympus 593 Mk 602, 17,259 kg (38,050 lb) thrust each
Manufacturer: Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale, Paris, France, and British Aircraft Corporation, London, United Kingdom
Physical Description:
Aircaft Serial Number: 205. Including four (4) engines, bearing respectively the serial number: CBE066, CBE062, CBE086 and CBE085.
Also included, aircraft plaque: "AIR FRANCE Lorsque viendra le jour d'exposer Concorde dans un musee, la Smithsonian Institution a dores et deja choisi, pour le Musee de l'Air et de l'Espace de Washington, un appariel portant le couleurs d'Air France."
I Timothy 4:8 NKJV " For bodily exercise profits a little, but Godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come."----------------------------------- The world emphasizes beauty, ability, and success. The world says fame, fortune, and power define greatness. Unless God is the backbone supporting our thoughts, we can be easily lured into taking on the philosophy of the world rather than the standards in the word of God. Constantly striving for influence, power, and money while ignoring the only example of greatness we have in Jesus! [ Matthew 20:28] " Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."------ A true leader places his or her needs last, as Jesus demonstrated in His life and death. If we embrace a life of Godliness we have some examples to live by.. (1) Never considering ourselves above others : { Romans 12:3} ( if we are proud, we cannot exercise our faith and gifts to benefit others. And if we consider ourselves worthless, we withhold what God intended to deliver to others through us.) (2) we should not be prideful : { James 4:10} ( when we submit ourselves to the Lord, He works through us to achieve His will. His glory allows us to accomplish things that are not possible through our own wisdom and strength.) (3) Help the weak by caring, Rather than criticizing : { I Thessalonians 5:14} ( The Lord ministers to us in different ways, depending on what we need at the time. When we help others, we need to ask the Lord to make us instruments of His love, mercy, and grace.) (4) Be ready to give all to promote salvation of the lost : { Mark 8:35} ( Jesus want's us to choose to follow Him rather than live a life of sin and self-satisfaction. We can gain nothing on earth that will ever compare to what we gain with Christ.)-- Every believer should have a servant's heart, and be willing to serve whenever the opportunity presents itself.. " For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." [ Galatians 5:13]-------- God blesses us so that we might bless others. That is what the Christian life is all about.
The Postcard
A postally unused postcard , on the divided back of which is printed:
'Printed in Paris - La Pina'
Rin Tin Tin
Nénette and Rintintin were the source of the name of the Hollywood film star dog Rin Tin Tin.
Rin Tin Tin (September 1918 – August 10, 1932) was a male German Shepherd dog born in Flirey, France, who became an international star in motion pictures.
He was rescued from a Great War battlefield by an American soldier, Lee Duncan, who nicknamed him "Rinty". Duncan trained Rin Tin Tin, and obtained silent film work for the dog.
Rin Tin Tin was an immediate box-office success, and went on to appear in 27 Hollywood films, gaining worldwide fame. Rin Tin Tin was responsible for greatly increasing the popularity of German Shepherd dogs as family pets.
The immense profitability of his films contributed to the success of Warner Bros. studios, and helped advance the career of Darryl F. Zanuck from screenwriter to producer and studio executive.
After Rin Tin Tin died in 1932, the name was given to several related German Shepherd dogs featured in fictional stories on film, radio, and television. Rin Tin Tin Jr. appeared in some serialized films, but was not as talented as his father.
Rin Tin Tin III, said to be Rin Tin Tin's grandson, but probably only distantly related, helped promote the military use of dogs during World War II. Rin Tin Tin III also appeared in a film with child actor Robert Blake in 1947.
Duncan groomed Rin Tin Tin IV for the 1950's television series The Adventures of Rin Tin Tin, but the dog performed poorly in a screen test, and was replaced in the TV show by trainer Frank Barnes's dogs, primarily one named Flame Jr., called JR, with the public being led to believe otherwise.
Instead of shooting episodes, Rin Tin Tin IV stayed at home in Riverside, California. The TV show Rin Tin Tin was nominated for a PATSY Award in both 1958 and 1959, but did not win.
After Duncan died in 1960, the screen property of Rin Tin Tin passed to TV producer Herbert B. Leonard, who worked on further adaptations such as the 1988–1993 Canadian-made TV show Katts and Dog, which was called Rin Tin Tin: K-9 Cop in the US, and Rintintin Junior in France.
Following Leonard's death in 2006, his lawyer James Tierney made the 2007 children's film Finding Rin Tin Tin, an American–Bulgarian production based on Duncan's discovery of the dog in France.
Meanwhile, a Rin Tin Tin memorabilia collection was being amassed by Texas resident Jannettia Propps Brodsgaard, who had purchased several direct descendant dogs from Duncan, beginning with Rinty Tin Tin Brodsgaard in 1957.
Brodsgaard bred the dogs to keep the bloodline. Brodsgaard's granddaughter, Daphne Hereford, continued to build on the tradition and bloodline of Rin Tin Tin from 1988 to 2011; she was the first to trademark the name Rin Tin Tin.
Hereford also opened a short-lived Rin Tin Tin museum in Latexo, Texas. Hereford passed the tradition to her daughter, Dorothy Yanchak, in 2011. The current dog, Rin Tin Tin XII, owned by Yanchak, takes part in public events to represent the Rin Tin Tin legacy.
The Origins of Rin Tin Tin
Following advances made by American forces during the Battle of Saint-Mihiel, Corporal Lee Duncan, an armourer of the U.S. Army Air Service, was sent forward on the 15th. September 1918, to the small French village of Flirey to see if it would make a suitable flying field for his unit, the 135th. Aero Squadron.
The area had been subjected to aerial bombing and artillery fire, and Duncan found a severely damaged kennel which had once supplied the Imperial German Army with German Shepherd dogs. The only dogs left alive in the kennel were a starving mother with a litter of five nursing puppies, their eyes still shut because they were less than a week old. Duncan rescued the dogs, and brought them back to his unit.
When the puppies were weaned, he gave the mother to an officer and three of the litter to other soldiers, but he kept one puppy of each sex. He felt that these two dogs were symbols of his good luck.
He dubbed them Rin Tin Tin and Nanette after a pair of good luck charms called Rintintin and Nénette that French children often gave to the American soldiers. The soldiers were told that Rintintin and Nénette were lucky lovers who had survived a bombing attack, but the original dolls had been designed by Francisque Poulbot before the war in late 1913 to look like Paris street urchins. Contrary to linguistic clues and popular usage, Poulbot said that Rintintin was the girl doll.
Duncan sensed that Nanette was the more intelligent of the two puppies.
In July 1919, Duncan sneaked the dogs aboard a ship taking him back to the US at the end of the war. When he got to Long Island, New York, for re-entry processing, he put his dogs in the care of a Hempstead breeder named Mrs. Leo Wanner, who trained police dogs.
Nanette was diagnosed with pneumonia; as a replacement, the breeder gave Duncan another female German Shepherd puppy. Duncan travelled to California by rail with his dogs. While Duncan was travelling by train, Nanette died in Hempstead. As a memorial, Duncan named his new puppy Nanette II, but he called her Nanette.
Duncan, Rin Tin Tin, and Nanette II settled at his home in Los Angeles. Rin Tin Tin was a dark sable colour, and had very dark eyes. Nanette II was much lighter in colour.
An athletic silent film actor named Eugene Pallette was one of Duncan's friends. The two men enjoyed the outdoors; they took the dogs to the Sierras, where Pallette liked to hunt, while Duncan taught Rin Tin Tin various tricks. Duncan thought that his dog might win a few awards at dog shows and thus be a valuable source of puppies bred with Nanette for sale.
In 1922, Duncan was a founding member of the Shepherd Dog Club of California, based in Los Angeles. At the club's first show, Rin Tin Tin showed his agility, but also demonstrated an aggressive temper, growling, barking, and snapping.
It was a very poor performance, but the worst moment came afterward when Duncan was walking home. A heavy bundle of newspapers was thrown from a delivery truck and landed on the dog, breaking his left front leg. Duncan had the injured limb set in plaster, and he nursed the dog back to health for nine months.
Ten months after the break, the leg was healed and Rin Tin Tin was entered in a show for German Shepherd dogs in Los Angeles. Rin Tin Tin had learned to leap great heights.
At the dog show while making a winning leap, he was filmed by Duncan's acquaintance Charley Jones, who had just developed a slow-motion camera. Seeing his dog being filmed, Duncan became convinced Rin Tin Tin could become the next Strongheart, a successful film dog that lived in his own full-sized stucco bungalow with its own street address in the Hollywood Hills, separate from the mansion of his owners, who lived a street away next to Roy Rogers.
Duncan later wrote:
"I was so excited over the film idea
that I found myself thinking of it night
and day."
The Film Career of Rin Tin Tin
Duncan walked his dog up and down Poverty Row, talking to anyone in a position to put Rin Tin Tin in film, however modest the role.
The dog's first break came when he was asked to replace a camera-shy wolf in The Man from Hell's River (1922) featuring Wallace Beery. The wolf was not performing properly for the director, but under the guidance of Duncan's voice commands, Rin Tin Tin was very easy to work with. When the film was completed, the dog was billed as "Rin Tan".
Rin Tin Tin would be cast as a wolf or wolf-hybrid many times in his career, because it was much more convenient for filmmakers to work with a trained dog.
In another 1922 film titled My Dad, Rin Tin Tin picked up a small part as a household dog. The credits read:
"Rin Tin Tin – Played by himself".
Rin Tin Tin's first starring role was in Where the North Begins (1923), in which he played alongside silent screen actress Claire Adams. This film was a huge success, and has often been credited with saving Warner Bros. from bankruptcy.
It was followed by 24 more screen appearances. Each of these films was very popular, making such a profit for Warner Bros. that Rin Tin Tin was called "the mortgage lifter" by studio insiders.
A young screenwriter named Darryl F. Zanuck was involved in creating stories for Rin Tin Tin; the success of the films raised him to the position of film producer. In New York City, Mayor Jimmy Walker gave Rin Tin Tin a key to the city.
Rin Tin Tin was much sought after, and was signed for endorsement deals. Ken-L Ration, Ken-L-Biskit, and Pup-E-Crumbles all featured him in their advertisements. Warner Bros. fielded fan letters by the thousands, sending back a glossy portrait signed with a paw print and a message written by Duncan:
"Most faithfully, Rin Tin Tin."
In the 1920's, Rin Tin Tin's success for Warner Bros. inspired several imitations from other studios looking to cash in on his popularity, notably RKO's Ace the Wonder Dog, also a German Shepherd dog.
Around the world, Rin Tin Tin was extremely popular because as a dog he was equally well understood by all viewers. At the time, silent films were easily adapted for various countries by simply changing the language of the intertitles. Rin Tin Tin's films were widely distributed.
Film historian Jan-Christopher Horak wrote that by 1927, Rin Tin Tin was the most popular actor with the very sophisticated film audience in Berlin. One fan wrote:
"He is a human dog, "human in
the real big sense of the word."
A Hollywood legend holds that at the first-ever Academy Awards competition in 1929, Rin Tin Tin was voted Best Actor, but that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, wishing to appear more serious and thus determined to have a human actor win the award, removed Rin Tin Tin as a choice and re-ran the vote, leading to German actor Emil Jannings winning the award.
Author Susan Orlean stated this story as fact in her 2011 book Rin Tin Tin: The Life and the Legend. However, former Academy head Bruce Davis has written that the 1928 ballots, kept in storage at the Academy's Margaret Herrick Library, show a complete absence of votes for Rin Tin Tin.
Davis called the story an urban legend that probably originated in a joke ballot circulated that year by Zanuck, who wanted to mock the concept of the Academy Awards.
Although primarily a star of silent films, Rin Tin Tin did appear in four sound features, including the 12-part Mascot Studios chapter-play The Lightning Warrior (1931), co-starring with Frankie Darro. In these films, vocal commands would have been picked up by the microphones, so Duncan likely guided Rin Tin Tin by hand signals.
Rin Tin Tin and the rest of the crew filmed much of the outdoor action footage for The Lightning Warrior on the Iverson Movie Ranch in Chatsworth, Los Angeles, known for its huge sandstone boulders and widely recognized as the most heavily filmed outdoor shooting location in the history of the movies.
Rin Tin Tin and Nanette II produced at least 48 puppies; Duncan kept two of them, selling the rest or giving them as gifts. Greta Garbo, W. K. Kellogg, and Jean Harlow each owned one of Rin Tin Tin's descendants.
The Death of Rin Tin Tin
On the 10th. August 1932, Rin Tin Tin died at Duncan's home on Club View Drive in Los Angeles. Duncan wrote about the death in his unpublished memoir: He heard Rin Tin Tin bark in a peculiar fashion, so he went to see what was wrong. He found the dog lying on the ground, moments away from death.
In the United States, Rin Tin Tin's death set off a national response. Regular programming was interrupted by a news bulletin. An hour-long program about Rin Tin Tin played the next day.
Newspapers across the nation carried obituaries. Magazine articles were written about his life, and a special Movietone News feature was shown to movie audiences.
In the press, aspects of the death were fabricated in various ways, such as Rin Tin Tin dying on the set of the film Pride of the Legion (where Rin Tin Tin Jr. was working), dying at night, or dying at home on the front lawn in the arms of actress Jean Harlow, who lived on the same street.
In a private ceremony, Duncan buried Rin Tin Tin in a bronze casket in his own backyard with a plain wooden cross to mark the location. Duncan was suffering the financial effects of the Great Depression and could not afford a finer burial, nor even his own expensive house.
He sold his house, and quietly arranged to have the dog's body returned to his country of birth for reburial in the Cimetière des Chiens et Autres Animaux Domestiques, the pet cemetery in the Parisian suburb of Asnières-sur-Seine.
In a ceremony on the 8th. February 1960, Rin Tin Tin was honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 1627 Vine Street.
Before tossing seventeen years of heavy magazines away (notice the bow of the shelf) I had to document them. On the left is the premiere issue of Wired and at the top is the very latest issue (they are placed in order, left to right). I just found a few more laying around the house but this photo should do for proper documentation.
By the looks of it, Wired's 8th year was their most profitable: each issue is much thicker (presumably with lots of ads and their revenue) than in any other year.
Cap'n Nobeard in a particularly piratical mood after a not-so profitable raiding journey.
The grog Cap'n Nobeard is holding is Screech, a rum from the Canadian province of Newfoundland. Back in the day salted cod from Newfoundland was traded in the Caribbean for Jamaican rum which resulted in fish becoming the main dish in Jamaica and rum being the official drink in Newfoundland. Screech is a slang term for moonshine with a high alcohol content.
Also way, way back in the day, Newfoundland, along with Nova Scotia, were rumoured to be safe havens for pirates after profitable raids along the Atlantic seaboard of North America and the Caribbean. There are also rumours of long buried treasure, specifically by Blackbeard and Captain Kidd in Atlantic Canada.
There has been an interminably long and dreadfully boring reality TV series call The Curse of Oak Island in which treasure hunters have been trying to find the long lost treasure of Captain Kidd. Oak Island is just south of Halifax, Nova Scotia and to date, no treasure has been found.
We're Here celebrates Talk Like a Pirate Day and as a "modern day pirate" Cap'n Nobeard wears glasses with a true "eye patch". Arrrhh!
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | North American P-51C, "Excalibur III":
On May 29, 1951, Capt. Charles F. Blair flew Excalibur III from Norway across the North Pole to Alaska in a record-setting 10½ hours. Using a system of carefully plotted "sun lines" he developed, Blair was able to navigate with precision where conventional magnetic compasses often failed. Four months earlier, he had flown Excalibur III from New York to London in less than 8 hours, breaking the existing mark by over an hour.
Excalibur III first belonged to famed aviator A. Paul Mantz, who added extra fuel tanks for long-distance racing to this standard P-51C fighter. With it Mantz won the 1946 and 1947 Bendix air race and set a transcontinental speed record in 1947 when the airplane was named Blaze of Noon. Blair purchased it from Mantz in 1949 and renamed it Excalibur III, after the Sikorsky VS-44 flying boat he flew for American Export Airlines.
Gift of Pan American World Airways
Manufacturer:
North American Aircraft Company
Date:
1944
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Dimensions:
Wingspan: 11.3 m (37 ft)
Length: 9.8 m (32 ft 3 in)
Height: 3.9 m (12 ft 10 in)
Weight, empty: 4,445 kg (9,800 lb)
Weight, gross: 5,052 kg (11,800 lb)
Top speed: 700 km/h (435 mph)
Materials:
Overall: Aluminum
Physical Description:
Single seat, single engine, low wing monoplane, World War II fighter modified for racing.
• • • • •
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Boeing 367-80 Jet Transport:
On July 15, 1954, a graceful, swept-winged aircraft, bedecked in brown and yellow paint and powered by four revolutionary new engines first took to the sky above Seattle. Built by the Boeing Aircraft Company, the 367-80, better known as the Dash 80, would come to revolutionize commercial air transportation when its developed version entered service as the famous Boeing 707, America's first jet airliner.
In the early 1950s, Boeing had begun to study the possibility of creating a jet-powered military transport and tanker to complement the new generation of Boeing jet bombers entering service with the U.S. Air Force. When the Air Force showed no interest, Boeing invested $16 million of its own capital to build a prototype jet transport in a daring gamble that the airlines and the Air Force would buy it once the aircraft had flown and proven itself. As Boeing had done with the B-17, it risked the company on one roll of the dice and won.
Boeing engineers had initially based the jet transport on studies of improved designs of the Model 367, better known to the public as the C-97 piston-engined transport and aerial tanker. By the time Boeing progressed to the 80th iteration, the design bore no resemblance to the C-97 but, for security reasons, Boeing decided to let the jet project be known as the 367-80.
Work proceeded quickly after the formal start of the project on May 20, 1952. The 367-80 mated a large cabin based on the dimensions of the C-97 with the 35-degree swept-wing design based on the wings of the B-47 and B-52 but considerably stiffer and incorporating a pronounced dihedral. The wings were mounted low on the fuselage and incorporated high-speed and low-speed ailerons as well as a sophisticated flap and spoiler system. Four Pratt & Whitney JT3 turbojet engines, each producing 10,000 pounds of thrust, were mounted on struts beneath the wings.
Upon the Dash 80's first flight on July 15, 1954, (the 34th anniversary of the founding of the Boeing Company) Boeing clearly had a winner. Flying 100 miles per hour faster than the de Havilland Comet and significantly larger, the new Boeing had a maximum range of more than 3,500 miles. As hoped, the Air Force bought 29 examples of the design as a tanker/transport after they convinced Boeing to widen the design by 12 inches. Satisfied, the Air Force designated it the KC-135A. A total of 732 KC-135s were built.
Quickly Boeing turned its attention to selling the airline industry on this new jet transport. Clearly the industry was impressed with the capabilities of the prototype 707 but never more so than at the Gold Cup hydroplane races held on Lake Washington in Seattle, in August 1955. During the festivities surrounding this event, Boeing had gathered many airline representatives to enjoy the competition and witness a fly past of the new Dash 80. To the audience's intense delight and Boeing's profound shock, test pilot Alvin "Tex" Johnston barrel-rolled the Dash 80 over the lake in full view of thousands of astonished spectators. Johnston vividly displayed the superior strength and performance of this new jet, readily convincing the airline industry to buy this new airliner.
In searching for a market, Boeing found a ready customer in Pan American Airway's president Juan Trippe. Trippe had been spending much of his time searching for a suitable jet airliner to enable his pioneering company to maintain its leadership in international air travel. Working with Boeing, Trippe overcame Boeing's resistance to widening the Dash-80 design, now known as the 707, to seat six passengers in each seat row rather than five. Trippe did so by placing an order with Boeing for 20 707s but also ordering 25 of Douglas's competing DC-8, which had yet to fly but could accommodate six-abreast seating. At Pan Am's insistence, the 707 was made four inches wider than the Dash 80 so that it could carry 160 passengers six-abreast. The wider fuselage developed for the 707 became the standard design for all of Boeing's subsequent narrow-body airliners.
Although the British de Havilland D.H. 106 Comet and the Soviet Tupolev Tu-104 entered service earlier, the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 were bigger, faster, had greater range, and were more profitable to fly. In October 1958 Pan American ushered the jet age into the United States when it opened international service with the Boeing 707 in October 1958. National Airlines inaugurated domestic jet service two months later using a 707-120 borrowed from Pan Am. American Airlines flew the first domestic 707 jet service with its own aircraft in January 1959. American set a new speed mark when it opened the first regularly-scheduled transcontinental jet service in 1959. Subsequent nonstop flights between New York and San Francisco took only 5 hours - 3 hours less than by the piston-engine DC-7. The one-way fare, including a $10 surcharge for jet service, was $115.50, or $231 round trip. The flight was almost 40 percent faster and almost 25 percent cheaper than flying by piston-engine airliners. The consequent surge of traffic demand was substantial.
The 707 was originally designed for transcontinental or one-stop transatlantic range. But modified with extra fuel tanks and more efficient turbofan engines, the 707-300 Intercontinental series aircraft could fly nonstop across the Atlantic with full payload under any conditions. Boeing built 855 707s, of which 725 were bought by airlines worldwide.
Having launched the Boeing Company into the commercial jet age, the Dash 80 soldiered on as a highly successful experimental aircraft. Until its retirement in 1972, the Dash 80 tested numerous advanced systems, many of which were incorporated into later generations of jet transports. At one point, the Dash 80 carried three different engine types in its four nacelles. Serving as a test bed for the new 727, the Dash 80 was briefly equipped with a fifth engine mounted on the rear fuselage. Engineers also modified the wing in planform and contour to study the effects of different airfoil shapes. Numerous flap configurations were also fitted including a highly sophisticated system of "blown" flaps which redirected engine exhaust over the flaps to increase lift at low speeds. Fin height and horizontal stabilizer width was later increased and at one point, a special multiple wheel low pressure landing gear was fitted to test the feasibility of operating future heavy military transports from unprepared landing fields.
After a long and distinguished career, the Boeing 367-80 was finally retired and donated to the Smithsonian in 1972. At present, the aircraft is installated at the National Air and Space Museum's new facility at Washington Dulles International Airport.
Gift of the Boeing Company
Manufacturer:
Date:
1954
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Dimensions:
Height 19' 2": Length 73' 10": Wing Span 129' 8": Weight 33,279 lbs.
Physical Description:
Prototype Boeing 707; yellow and brown.
• • • • •
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Concorde, Fox Alpha, Air France:
The first supersonic airliner to enter service, the Concorde flew thousands of passengers across the Atlantic at twice the speed of sound for over 25 years. Designed and built by Aérospatiale of France and the British Aviation Corporation, the graceful Concorde was a stunning technological achievement that could not overcome serious economic problems.
In 1976 Air France and British Airways jointly inaugurated Concorde service to destinations around the globe. Carrying up to 100 passengers in great comfort, the Concorde catered to first class passengers for whom speed was critical. It could cross the Atlantic in fewer than four hours - half the time of a conventional jet airliner. However its high operating costs resulted in very high fares that limited the number of passengers who could afford to fly it. These problems and a shrinking market eventually forced the reduction of service until all Concordes were retired in 2003.
In 1989, Air France signed a letter of agreement to donate a Concorde to the National Air and Space Museum upon the aircraft's retirement. On June 12, 2003, Air France honored that agreement, donating Concorde F-BVFA to the Museum upon the completion of its last flight. This aircraft was the first Air France Concorde to open service to Rio de Janeiro, Washington, D.C., and New York and had flown 17,824 hours.
Gift of Air France.
Manufacturer:
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale
Dimensions:
Wingspan: 25.56 m (83 ft 10 in)
Length: 61.66 m (202 ft 3 in)
Height: 11.3 m (37 ft 1 in)
Weight, empty: 79,265 kg (174,750 lb)
Weight, gross: 181,435 kg (400,000 lb)
Top speed: 2,179 km/h (1350 mph)
Engine: Four Rolls-Royce/SNECMA Olympus 593 Mk 602, 17,259 kg (38,050 lb) thrust each
Manufacturer: Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale, Paris, France, and British Aircraft Corporation, London, United Kingdom
Physical Description:
Aircaft Serial Number: 205. Including four (4) engines, bearing respectively the serial number: CBE066, CBE062, CBE086 and CBE085.
Also included, aircraft plaque: "AIR FRANCE Lorsque viendra le jour d'exposer Concorde dans un musee, la Smithsonian Institution a dores et deja choisi, pour le Musee de l'Air et de l'Espace de Washington, un appariel portant le couleurs d'Air France."
From William and Mary's own Nottoway Quarter tobacco, to the Tau Chi Literary Society's "large and curious smoking pipe," a cigarette holder decorated with (near-mascot) pugs, to a musical ashtray in William and Mary's green and gold, Swem Library's Special Collections Research Center holds documents and artifacts that reflect the history and changing fashions of tobacco in America.
Students in the NIAHD Field School in Material Culture (HIST 491-03/591-03, Prof. Susan Kern) have curated an exhibition of tobacco objects from Swem’s collection. Come visit the exhibition, but remember...No Smoking Allowed!
The Tobacco Economy
Since 1612, when John Rolfe first experimented with tobacco at Jamestown, throughout American history this cash crop has been a profitable commodity. During the colonial period, tobacco was used as legal tender to pay bills, clear debts, fund businesses and educational institutions, including the College of William and Mary. Virginia's 19th century tobacco economy spurred the growth of manufacturing, corporations, and transportation systems. Tobacco's story is tied to the beginning of slavery, and tobacco revenue helped the United States pay for the expenses of the Civil War.
This exhibit contains documents from William and Mary's own past as a producer and beneficiary of tobacco, as well as other business papers in Swem Library’s collection that show many aspects of the business of tobacco in Virginia.
Parts of A Tobacco Flower
William Tatham. An Historical and Practical Essay on the Culture and Commerce of Tobacco. London, 1800.
A Tobacco Flower
Jonathan Carver. A Treatise on the Culture of the Tobacco Plant; with the manner in which it is usually cured. Adapted to northern climates, and designed for the use of the landowners of Great-Britain. London, 1779.
John Player & Sons Tobacco Cards, England, 1926.
Purchase, January 2010.
John Player & Sons was a tobacco and cigarette manufacturer in England and one of the first English companies to include sets of general interest collectible cards in their cigarettes. Cigarette cards advertised for their brands. They were started in 1879 as a single card with the company’s name and contact information on it included in a cigarette pack. By 1885 cigarette brands began to compete for the most attractive images and information on their cards. Card-collecting quickly became popular throughout Europe and America and many consumers switched between cigarette brands in order to collect the most attractive cigarette cards.
This specific set of cigarette cards was made in 1926 and portrays the process of manufacturing tobacco from the field to the consumer.
Ephemera Collection, Mss. 1.02, Acc. 2010.084
“From Plantation to Smoker,” John Player & Sons Tobacco Cards, England, 1926.
Card #6: Topping Tobacco:
In order to maximize leaf production on tobacco when the plant begins to flower in late summer, planters remove the flower, a process called “topping.” Removing the flower causes the tobacco plant to switch from a seed producing plant to a plant with larger, heavier leaves.
Suckers: Once a tobacco plant has been through the topping process new buds begin to appear which are known as “suckers.” Suckers are removed manually by simply breaking them off of the plant.
Tobacco Leaves
Jonathan Carver. A Treatise on the Culture of the Tobacco Plant; with the manner in which it is usually cured. Adapted to northern climates, and designed for the use of the landowners of Great-Britain. London, 1779.
The location of a particular leaf on a tobacco plant determines its marketable value based on how much nicotine it contains. “Tips” are the shortest leaves at the top of the plant and contain the highest level of nicotine. “Leaf” are near the top of the plant and are longer and wider than tips with a moderate amount of nicotine. “Subleaf” and “cutters” are below the leaf level with a relative decrease in nicotine content. “Lugs” are the lowest leaves being short and wide in appearance with the least amount of nicotine.
Tobacco Hornworm
William Tatham. An Historical and Practical Essay on the Culture and Commerce of Tobacco. London, 1800.
Tobacco hornworms get their name from the prominent horn on the top of their last abdominal segment. The green color of the larvae allows them to be easily camouflaged when they are feeding on tobacco leaves. Because they damage valuable leaves, they are removed and destroyed by either drowning or snapping off of their heads. Once tobacco hornworms complete their transformation into adulthood they are known as either hawk moths or sphinx moths. The large moths are typically orange with yellow spots and have long forewings. The alkaloid (nicotine) in tobacco leaves is toxic to most insects except the hornworm.
Warehouses
William Tatham. An Historical and Practical Essay on the Culture and Commerce of Tobacco. London, 1800.
In 1713, in order to enforce tobacco inspections, the Virginia House of Burgesses established a warehouse system. In 1730, the Tobacco Inspection Act was passed which stated that all tobacco exported from Virginia had to meet a minimum standard of quality. Once tobacco passed inspection it was stored in official warehouses until it was shipped to England. In exchange for their crop passing inspection, planters received tobacco notes or warehouse receipts that could be used as currency.
Jonathan Carver. A Treatise on the Culture of the Tobacco Plant; with the manner in which it is usually cured. Adapted to northern climates, and designed for the use of the landowners of Great-Britain. London, 1779.
Letter, James Thomas, Jr., Richmond, Virginia. 1852.
Purchase, February 1939.
James Thomas, Jr. was a tobacco processor in Richmond. This letter is an example of his many correspondences regarding tobacco prices, accountings, and record of laborers.
James Thomas, Jr. Papers, Mss. 39.2 T38
Ledger, E.T. Pierce, Virginia. 1883-1885.
This is the ledger of E. T. Pierce, a merchant who sold tobacco fertilizers in both News Ferry and Halifax County, Virginia. Store merchants used ledgers to keep a detailed inventory of the products they bought and sold. Ledgers were especially valuable to tobacco merchants because they aided in keeping accurate records of all transactions that they would then be required to pay taxes on. Inaccurate records could lead to either overpaying or underpaying taxes, which would be considered an act of fraud. This ledger now is just as valuable to historians and genealogists searching for information about the past. Look carefully; do you recognize one of your ancestor’s names?
E. T. Pierce Ledger, Mss. MsV Ame T2 Oversize
Methods of Transporting Tobacco to Market
William Tatham. An Historical and Practical Essay on the Culture and Commerce of Tobacco. London, 1800.
Planters sent their tobacco to warehouses in large barrels called hogsheads that weighed about 1,000 pounds when fully packed. Water was the preferred route of travel. Hogsheads could be tied onto two canoes lashed together or on the flat-bottomed boats called bateaux that were developed during the 18th century for use on the sometimes-shallow upper James River.
Virginia's bumpy, and alternately dusty or muddy roads required other methods, none of which was as efficient as water carriage. Wagons could carry only a few hogsheads at a time. Rolling meant attaching a shaft to a single hogshead and harnessing draft animals to pull it to its destination.
Tax Stamp, R. A. Lively, Williamsburg, Virginia. 1883.
Gift of S.F. Royal via the Williamsburg Historic Records Association, 1990.
A Tax Stamp, also called an “Excise Stamp” or “Revenue Stamp,” was a physical representation of a tax. The stamp was placed in a specified location on tobacco and alcohol containers so when the product was opened the stamp would be broken. The United States Internal Revenue department originally taxed tobacco and alcohol to raise money to fund the Civil War.
S. F. (Bill) Royall, Jr. Papers, Acc. 1990.16
A Penny A Pound
During the colonial period, the College of William and Mary received money from tobacco in two ways. Beginning in 1692, the Navigation Act specified that William and Mary was to receive a penny for every pound of tobacco leaving the colonies of Virginia and Maryland for other plantations in the Americas. During the 18th century William and Mary owned plantation lands where College-owned slaves grew tobacco for export.
Tobacco Duties
Account of Duty, Lower Port James River, October 10, 1763-April 5, 1764.
Customs collectors from tobacco ports on the Pocomoke, Accomack, Rappahannock, York, Potomac, South Potomack, and the two James River districts (Upper and Lower Ports), sent accounts of duty to the College of William and Mary bursar. The collectors logged ships, cargo, and "whither bound." Various accounts show the College collecting money from tobacco headed to London, Newfoundland, Salem, Newbury, Piscataqua, New England, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Georgia, Antigua, Barbados, and Grenada.
Accounts note duties paid in paper money, gold, German gold, and silver. In 1726, President James Blair made a plea to the Lords of Trade and Commissioners of Customs in England, for the College to collect duties from the "three lower counties in Pennsylvania" and from North Carolina to be paid in £ sterling and not in each colony's changeable currency.
College Papers Collection, UA 14
Account of Duties on Tobacco, July 28, 1769.
As late as 1769, the College of William and Mary Burser's Account recorded payment in the traditional English calendar terms of quarter days not by months. Hence the cycle of the year as Ladymass, Midsummer, Michaelmas, Xmas (Christmas).
College Papers Collection, UA 14
Bills of Lading
February 26, 1763, showing cipher for the College of William and Mary and record of shipment.
August 24, 1763, detail of "Nottoway Quarter" on reverse.
Tobacco from William and Mary's Nottoway Quarter plantation moved through inspection stations on the James River to ships bound for London. The Nottoway Quarter produced as many as 25 hogsheads of tobacco in a year - about 25,000 pounds of the weed. From 1718 to 1777 William and Mary owned between 17 and 30 slaves who grew tobacco to fund scholarships for students.
College Papers Collection, UA 14
Virginia Gazette, Dixon and Hunter, November 28, 1777 [copy].
The College of William and Mary sold its slaves and "plantation utensils" at auction in 1777.
Account of Receipt
C & O Hanbury, London, December 15, 1767.
The London merchant house of Capel and Osgood Hanbury, later Hanbury and Lloyd, managed the sale of College of William and Mary tobacco in European markets and the collection of funds owed to William and Mary from English sources, such as the Brafferton estate. Hanbury's letters often explain the highs and lows of the international tobacco markets, including two years of meager revenues due to College tobacco that was "mean" or showed "poorness of quality." In 1769, one London merchant advised the president and masters of the College "that the seed be changed & the overseer be admonished to be more careful in his conduct respecting [the crop]."
College Papers Collection, UA 14
Tobacco as Legal Tender
Minutes of the Faculty, William and Mary College, December 29, 1779, [transcription].
The College of William and Mary both collected and paid debts using tobacco.
In 1779, the College faculty decided "that a Student on paying annually one thousand pounds of Tobacco shall be entitled to attend any two of the following Professors, viz: of Law & Police, of Natural Philosophy & Mathematics, & of Moral Philosophy, the Laws of Nature & Nations, & of the fine arts, & that for fifteen hundred pound pounds [sic] he shall be entitled to attend the three said Professors, the fees to be paid at the at Period of the year when the Courses of Lecture commence."
The faculty paid a College steward in tobacco and slaves for his use: "Mr. James Wilson be allowed 3,000 lbs. of Tobacco pr annum, two men & a Boy, & any Benefit he can derive from the Garden after supplying the President & Professors with vegetables, as Steward & Gardener of the College."
From the Special Collections Research Center, Earl Gregg Swem Library at the College of William and Mary. See swem.wm.edu/scrc/ for further information and assistance.
SPECIAL REPORT: WHAT WENT WRONG
DO BUILDERS' BUCKS BUY POLITICAL POWER?
LISA GETTER Herald Staff Writer
December 20, 1992
Page: 7SR
As developers transformed the landscape of Dade County in the decade before Hurricane Andrew, more and more of their money fueled Metro Commission campaigns.
In 1980, building interests contributed almost one of every four campaign dollars collected, a Miami Herald analysis of campaign contributions showed. In 1986, when construction was booming, the building industry gave at least one of every three campaign dollars.
"Contributions from builders helped make it easier, quicker and more profitable for them to build," said political strategist Philip Hamersmith.
"People don't give contributions for better government reasons. They give for greater access to the County Commission and ultimately, to get the action or position they want."
To study the local political clout of the building industry, The Herald created a computer database to analyze major campaign contributions to Metro Commission candidates. The
commission has the final say over zoning and revisions to the South Florida Building Code. It also appoints the Board of Rules and Appeals, the panel that oversees the code.
The database included contributions of $100 or more that were given to any commission candidate who collected at least $20,000 for the six elections between 1980 and 1990. The study was limited to contributions of $500 or more for the 1988 election. The final database included 17,268 contributions.
It showed that:
* Building money accounted for about 27 percent of the money collected by commission candidates during the study period.
* Builders contributed about $2.2 million in the six elections -- more money than was collected in any single election year by all major candidates combined.
* More than half of the money that came from builders throughout the study period was contributed during the 1986 and 1988 elections, years when there was increased growth in the county.
* Political dollars from builders peaked in 1986, when 38 percent of the money collected came from the construction industry.
* Contributions from builders dropped significantly in 1990 to the 20 percent level, where they had been in 1982.
Engineer Herbert Gopman said his tenure on the Board of Rules and Appeals illustrates the power campaign money can buy.
Records show that Mayor Steve Clark appointed Gopman to the board in 1984, but Gopman said he really was the appointee of the trade unions.
Former Commissioner Beverly Phillips said appointments to the board often were made the way Gopman described. "We used to call the building and zoning people or the unions or the building trades" for names of nominees, she said. In hindsight, she said, it was "maybe the fox going into the hen house."
Gopman said trade unions considered him accountable to them. The study showed trade unions contributed about $80,500 to commissioners.
"In a controversial matter, they will call you out and say, 'You've got to vote this way.' I didn't always meet their demands," Gopman said. "I wasn't reappointed."
The 1992 grand jury concluded last week that "parts of the construction industry continually exert undue influence" on the board's decisions.
Homeowners' representatives say they are powerless to raise the kind of money that comes from the building industry.
"It's very difficult. You can sit and have a party for a commissioner and maybe raise $1,000 or $2,000," said Neal Alper, an officer in the Kendall Federation of Homeowners Associations. "But a developer, who stands to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits, can just contribute $1,000 at a time."
Chuck Lennon, the executive director of the Builders Association of South Florida, said the 1,100-member organization's political action committee contributes money every year to commission candidates -- about $23,000 during the decade, the study showed. Before contributing money, the PAC interviews candidates and makes endorsements.
"The only thing it does is give you entry. It doesn't give you their vote, but it does give you an opportunity to get their ear," Lennon said.
Mayor Clark, who received more money from builders than any other candidate, said he thinks builders supported him because he had been a general contractor. "If builders contributed to my campaign, I thank them for that," he said. "I didn't give them special treatment."
Former Commissioner Phillips, who often voted against builders, said she never sought their money. But she said she would at least listen to people who contributed to her.
"They gave money to me just so they could have my ear on occasion," she said.
The Latin Builders Association also interviews candidates and makes endorsements. Although its political action committee contributed only $8,000 throughout the decade, individual members have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars more.
Among past and present LBA members who contributed more than $10,000 during the decade, either individually or through their firms, were homebuilder Pedro Adrian, developers Erelio Pena, Jesus Portela and Felix Lima, engineering contractor Rolando Iglesias and plumbing company owner Sergio Pino.
"It gives you an open door with the commissioner. You're at least able to get an appointment with a commissioner and explain your case," said LBA executive director William Delgado.
Once the LBA board of directors decides who it will support, the organization sends a mailing to its approximately 1,000 members. The group also holds fund-raisers. It raised $45,000 for Sherman Winn at a 1986 fund-raiser and $77,000 for Clara Oesterle at a 1988 fund-raiser.
Under the guidance of zoning lawyer Tom Carlos, the LBA was successful in persuading the commission in 1985 to open 2,900 acres to development in West and Southwest Dade.
"There was a period there when the commission was definitely dominated by pro-development views. That can best be shown by votes on Master Plan applications," said Metro Commissioner Harvey Ruvin.
Ruvin voted against most of the changes in the county land- use plan. "As it turns out, a lot of that development, especially in the Southwest, did experience extreme hurricane damage," he said.
After the 1985 hearings, Carlos told the LBA leadership it needed to financially support the commissioners who voted for the changes.
"These events were very important," Carlos said in a 1988 interview about the fund-
raisers. "I wanted the commissioners to associate faces with contributions. Later, when we go to the commission on an application, I want the commissioners to think of the individual contributors when they see me. I want them to be accountable to the person who is an applicant and my client."
Reginald Walters, who retired this year after 28 years as Metro planning director, said special interests contribute money "to keep in good favor with the commissioners."
"As long as I had been with Dade County, growth had been very rampant and very strong and the building industry had always had a great influence over the commission," Walters said.
ANDREW'S WINDS EXPOSED FLAWS IN INSPECTION SYSTEM
Continued from Page 6SR,
INSPECTIONS: A BREAKDOWN IN THE SYSTEM
LISA GETTER Herald Staff Writer
inspections, saying he had jeopardized the public's safety. The surveillance showed that he spent 64 minutes of his day making 38 inspections, approving 30.
"That's in the past," Varona said in a recent interview. "That's over with me."
The computer showed that Varona had logged five days with more than 50 inspections, including the day in 1990 he reported making 82. Varona said he did not remember ever doing that many in a day. The most, he said, was "probably 50 or 55."
Everett said the high number of inspections he performed is misleading because he worked long days. The computer showed 40 times since 1988 when he was sent out on more than 50 inspections in a day.
"The grand jury had a report. They said you can't do that many. What I would say is go to the homeowner who reported seeing me at 8:30 p.m.," he said. "I have had many people come up to me after the hurricane and say, 'Mr. Everett, you may not remember me, but you inspected my house and it's still standing.' "
Tucker, the inspector who did 68 inspections in one day in 1988, said it's possible to do an excellent job if all the inspections are in the same neighborhood and many are rejected. The computer database indicates on that day he rejected 13 inspections and the remainder -- mostly slab and framing inspections -- were approved. He would not comment directly.
The county's chief code compliance officer, Charles Danger, said he doesn't think any inspector should make more than 20 inspections in a day. The department's new goal is 18. Danger was amazed to learn that inspectors made more than 50.
"It's impossible for a person to do that amount of inspections and do a good job on it," Danger said. "It's humanly impossible."
Inspectors testified to the 1990 grand jury that their inspections had been "inadequate and falsified" in many instances. They blamed the large number of daily inspections required.
"While we are certain that there are many qualified and dedicated building inspectors doing an effective job, we are also certain that others are not," the grand jurors wrote.
Grand jury investigators caught inspectors spending part of their work day watching women bowl, reading a newspaper in a library, sleeping in a car or going home early.
"Prior to the grand jury, the message that I had from upper management was to be more efficient as possible. We really tried to work our tails off," said Chief Building Inspector Roberto Pineiro. "The emphasis was put on productivity. After the grand jury report, the emphasis was put on quality."
Pineiro said he found it hard to believe that the computer database was accurate in pinpointing so many instances of high inspection days. His theories: clerks entered the data wrong; the inspections listed on those days were canceled; the inspections on those days were all in the same neighborhood.
"Building and zoning supervisors appear out of touch with the actual operations of the inspection department," the 1990 grand jurors concluded.
Inspector Rodriguez said times have changed since the days when inspectors were asked to make more inspections in a day than they could realistically complete. The computer database showed 33 times since 1988 in which he logged more than 50 daily inspections. Once, Rodriguez said, he was given a daily route sheet calling for him to make 110 inspections.
"We were being demanded to do all of our inspections. We just ran right through them," he said.
Sometimes, other inspectors would help. And sometimes, Rodriguez said he carried over inspections to the following day -- a practice that was frowned on by the department. The days in which Rodriguez carried over his inspections were not included in the Herald computer study.
Joaquin Avino, who has been county manager since 1988, said it would be "unrealistic" to make 110 inspections in a day. "Needless to say, as county manager, you don't look at the number of inspections an inspector was doing," he said.
The 1990 surveillance caught some inspectors who never left their cars when doing inspections. To some investigators, that's worse than taking money.
"I really don't know if it's the giving of money that's totally corrupt. Maybe it's not getting your butt out of your car to see if something was built right that's really corrupt," Metro-Dade detective Anthony Kost said in a recent interview. Kost worked on the 1986 undercover probe of the building department.
In that case, contractors literally threw money into the car of a Metro detective who was posing as an inspector. Eventually, 24 contractors, developers, homeowners and one building inspector were charged -- most with giving $10 and $20 bribes.
Roofing contractor Ernesto Valladares pleaded no contest after he gave the undercover officer $100 to approve three roofing inspections that had been rejected. Thirty homes contracted by Valladares' firm were uninhabitable after Andrew, computer data show.
"There was an awful lot of bribery going on. It was a common way of doing business," said former state prosecutor David Troyer, who handled the case. "I think it would be unreasonable to assume it began and ended with that investigation."
But none of the 15 who pleaded guilty in the 1986 probe got a harsh sentence. Judges were not inclined to sentence a developer to jail for a $20 bribe.
Ten years before Troyer's investigation, a 1976 grand jury condemned county inspections.
"Instead of requiring thorough, proper inspections, the county gave into the pressure of the building industry," the 1976 grand jury wrote. "The county should have been prepared to adequately staff the department during peak periods of construction with trained personnel. It was not prepared."
Franklyn Tarbox, an inspector from 1966 until 1982, said he never had to meet a quota.
"In the '70s and '60s, you checked how many nails were in the boards. I don't know, I guess it might have changed," he said. "How long would it take? Sometimes a half hour, sometimes an hour."
The importance of a thorough inspection became apparent when dentist Jeffrey Glasser had his South Dade house built in 1976. The county stopped work on the house after a building inspector supervisor discovered code violations that another inspector had missed.
The construction was so bad that an engineer determined the house would be "insecure under hurricane wind loads."
Glasser got a new contractor. The county suspended for three days the inspector who missed the shoddy work. The house survived Andrew.
Dade experienced another building boom in the 1980s. Instead of learning from its mistakes, the county repeated them.
"We kept increasing the fees, but we never kept up with the inspection needs," said former Metro Commissioner Beverly Phillips, who was defeated in 1988. The fees from building permits finance code enforcement.
The county increased the number of daily inspections each inspector was supposed to make -- from 22 in 1985 to 27 in 1989 to 29 in 1990, rather than provide enough money to adequately staff the department, or attract young inspectors who want to make the job a career.
Because the job requires construction experience, many don't become inspectors until after they have retired from another job. Dave Bacon, for instance, didn't become an inspector until he was 65. He died in 1982 at 75 -- while still on the county payroll as an inspector. Julio Aldecocea became an inspector this year. He is 63.
General contractor Eduardo Roca, 36, joined the building department as an inspector in July 1991. He left after three months for a better job.
"In a lot of cases, they're taking the rap for no need," Roca said of the inspectors. "In my experience, what I saw, the work was being carried out in a very professional manner and they were doing everything to the best of their abilities."
While the county was tight with money for code enforcement, the code itself was undergoing a transformation. Builders, seeking cheaper and faster ways to construct homes, began using products not envisioned by the writers of the original 1957 code.
Many developers relied on letters from engineers that certified they were using building products -- like premanufactured roof trusses -- that met the code. The letters were rarely challenged by inspectors. Roof trusses failed repeatedly in the storm.
"There was a lot of stuff run under engineering letters. I have no idea how good they were," former inspector Kurtz said. "If an engineer certified that it was done according to code, we would accept it."
A major problem in the hurricane was the failure of roof tiles. Code compliance chief Danger said the problem could have been lessened had inspectors been given scales to test for wind uplift. Danger said inspectors told him they don't have the scales or know how to use them.
But chief inspector Pineiro, who said inspectors were given scales, said they weren't needed. "With a scale you could go fishing," he said. "It's not required. It's a gadget."
Retired inspector Tarbox said he became concerned when the county began allowing builders to use staples to attach shingles to roofs.
But inspectors are powerless to change the code. It was adopted and can be changed only by the Metro Commission. The job of interpreting the code is left to the Board of Rules and Appeals, whose members are appointed by the commission.
Inspector Rodriguez blamed the shoddy construction uncovered by Andrew on several factors. "I think there was a combination of a lot of things: poor design, poor workmanship, no supervision, and just maybe if we had spent more time on inspections," he said.
Copyright 1992 Miami Herald
These are views of the Gold Palace night club in La Zona (Boy's Town) perhaps twenty years after the government closed down that area. I wrote a story about the Gold Palace and it's owner, La Senora De Nava and a young man from that city sent me pictures of the decaying building.
Here's the story:
Page 1 of 7
I've known Ray Williams most of my life and I know him about as well as I know any human being on this earth. Ray lives out there in Blanco County. He's a very private person; you won't find his phone number in the directory and you won't find his name on the rolls of the usual community organizations and service clubs. Blanco County seems to be a repository of expatriates from that emerald city to the South, Corpus Christi. Like myself, Watercolorist Pat Glenn and Professor Bill Pollock, Ray Williams left the Coastal Bend for the joys of Blanco County about eight years ago and seems to have carved a permanent cubbyhole for himself right here among the natives of the Hill Country.
Ray is not what you would call a dynamic force; when he enters a room, no one seems to notice. The few times he's made a speech have been somewhat lackluster; an hour later you would be hard pressed to find anyone who could tell you what Ray said. A week later you'd be even harder pressed to find anyone who remembered that Ray had made a speech. I think the best word to define Ray and his efforts is "USUAL". Ray has the usual family, the usual hobbies, he writes the usual thing in his emails, he says the usual thing in conversation. Ray just lives the USUAL life. He's the usual height and the usual weight and maintains a usual state of mind.
But there is one thing in Ray's life that sets him apart from everyone else in Blanco County and, in fact, from most of the people in the United States. For a four month period of time in 1965 or thereabouts, Ray Williams was the INTERIOR DECORATOR FOR ONE OF THE LARGEST WHOREHOUSES IN MATAMOROS, MEXICO.
Ray believes that this exploit in his life was destiny and that every aspect of his life led directly to that moment when La Senora DeNava said in her cultivated Spanish, "I want you to redecorate my house inside and out choosing the colors that will make American men feel comfortable while they are visiting". And with those words the saga began.
At this point I have to bend to the right, get my face close to yours, look upwards and ask in a knowing voice, "you ain't from around here, are you?" First you have to know how Ray Williams got to the point that La Senora DeNava would make such a request. Having been discharged from the Armed Forces after World War Two and using the GI Bill of Rights to acquire a college degree, Ray taught school for a while, spent some time with a youth organization and around 1960 found himself working for the largest paint company in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Ray did pretty well in a small store in The Valley and had just been transferred to a much larger store in Brownsville, Texas when the chain of events leading up to this lifetime effort were set into motion.
Secondly, you have to know why Ray found himself dealing with La Senora DeNava and not with Enrique DeNava who was the original owner and founder of the Gold Palace night club in Matamoros, Mexico.
If you drive South out of Matamoros for a mile or two and look to the right you will see a bright glow with accents of color caused by vivid neon signs. At least, if the year were 1965 that's what you would have seen. 'They tell me that's all gone now; like the "best little whorehouse in La Grange, Texas" it's a part of history now. This glow on the horizon is called "Boy's Town" or "La Zona" and by some "la Zona Roja". This is the prostitution district of Matamoros, Mexico.
Page 2 of 7
One of La Zona's most respected and prosperous business men is Enrique DeNava who owns the Gold Palace and the Silver Slipper night clubs. The Gold Palace has from time to time had as many as forty prostitutes working exclusively for Enrique and the Silver Slipper has perhaps twenty-five. Enrique is a very wealthy man. His Gold Palace is designed to attract the business men of both Texas and Mexico with the finest product at a slightly elevated price (keeps out the "riff raff" don't you know?) and the Silver Slipper is more a working man's blue collar home away from home. Enrique probably has percentage interests in several other less attractive night clubs as well. Enrique DeNava is not a poor man and he is known and respected to the city fathers and the law enforcement officials of Matamoros. Enrique is a success.
Not the least of his successes is his marriage to La Senora DeNava who some twenty years before had been a novice prostitute in his fledgling business. We'll never know what attracted Enrique to this beginner. He certainly had choices. No doubt he saw in her a sense of business and a vision not unlike his own. Whatever that attraction was it certainly paid off over the next twenty years for Enrique because now with La Senora in full charge of the Gold Palace and a good young manager at the Silver Slipper (certainly a well monitored young manager), Enrique had time on his hands. Time to think; time to lean back in a cane-backed chair, against the well painted wall of the Gold Palace, to feel the afternoon sun on his shoulders and to dream dreams.
Something else you have to understand is the nature of the American Business Man. Not having fully broken ranks with the Victorian Era the American Business Man of the 1950s and 1960s found himself married to a woman who from birth was trained to say "NO", "STOP", "DON"T" and "NOT NOW!" with great expression. The discovery of Boy's Town by these men was like a small boy discovering a candy store just around the corner from his home. The business men on the Border took full advantage of this in the allocation of their entertainment budgets (rule no.1: get his signature on the contract before he goes back to the room with the girl!) and so the New Jersey plumbing supply salesman got a run for his money with his Two Martini Luncheon as these Border sharpies took their deductions and rushed to the IRS with their megadollars of "write offs". So was the nature of La Frontera (as the Mexicans called The Border) in and about 1965.
An evening of entertainment would begin with a two meat dinner at an elegant restaurant some of whom even had dress codes, followed by a drink or two at a downtown bar and then the drive to Boy's Town. Smart businessmen learned to leave their own cars at home and take taxis to the various locations. This of course gave rise to another industry, the independent taxi owner-operator. Once seated at a table in the Gold Palace the businessmen would be approached by an appropriate number of what appeared to be coeds from Texas A&I University in Kingsville, Texas who would request that the businessmen buy them a drink. Once this was agreed upon the girls would find chairs and smoothly move to their selection of the men present. After the exchange of names (whose names would be anyone's guess) and several jokes and drinks later, the girl would invite her companion back to her room.
Page 3 of 7
If this was satisfactory and a price agreed upon the businessman would find himself being led like a conquering hero back to the den of delights. At this point several components kick into place to make this not quite the experience to compensate for several months of "NO", "DON"T" and "NOT NOW". Amorous ardor doesn't seem to be enhanced by subliminal guilt, a heavy meal, too much alcohol and a nagging feeling that the contract you had just signed was not the contract you had in mind when you left Dallas. As the young lady and the gentlemen return from the room, their expressions are in deep contrast to those they took with them into the room. The girl has an expression on her face that leads one to wonder if she isn't completely bored out of her mind and the gentleman seems to be in utter distress in the urgency with which he needs to excuse himself and wash his hands. Just to prove that we have all done the right thing here another drink is ordered and consumed quickly before rushing for the door and the waiting taxi which will make the mad dash to the bridge and to the waiting motel and the compulsive shower followed by the sleepless night wondering if some strange little creatures are not even as we speak actively attacking the tissue of our most private parts and working their way into our bloodstream to destroy our blood vessels our internal organs and finally our brain. These factors will require a month to wear off before the businessman will be able to make his next sashay South of the Border. Did I say taxi?
In front of the Gold Palace there is a parking place which is known as the number one spot. This spot can make it's owner a rich man, not as rich as Enrique DeNava, but rich by 1965 Matamoros standards. Number one was owned by Robert Rodriguez and had been for years. Robert couldn't even remember how he had come by the Numero Uno spot, but it was making him rich. He never had to wait an hour for a fare. The only time other drivers got work was when Roberto was on a run or at home sleeping. Roberto's family lived in a fine home, finer than their families had ever dreamed and the children even went to a private school and Roberto's wife was so proud of him that she never used words like "NO", "DON'T" or "NOT NOW!". Roberto was a happy man, but what Roberto didn't know was that Enrique DeNava had a flea up his rectum that was giving him a great itch that he couldn't scratch. Enrique DeNava coveted the Numero Uno spot for himself because he knew that it was his own Gold Palace that made the Numero Uno spot what it was. So out of the clear blue sky one day Roberto was told to remove his taxi from the Numero Uno spot, that Mr. DeNava had assigned it to someone else. And thus the die was cast for Ray Williams to redecorate the Gold Palace.
A new driver, working for a flat salary of $125 a month and driving a taxi owned by Enrique DeNava dutifully took over the Numero Uno spot with considerably less enthusiasm than Roberto had shown and Roberto slipped into a dark brooding depression. His depression ended the day he drove his taxi up to the Gold Palace, parked in the number five place, walked up to Enrique DeNava, who was leaning against the wall in his straight-back chair, removed a .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun from his waistband and blew most of Enrique's head off.
Page 4 of 7
That shot wasn't even heard by Ray Williams who was busy selling his house in Weslaco, Texas, buying a house in Brownsville, Texas and moving his family there in preparation for assuming the job of manager of the largest paint store in that city. The store was a very profitable one, was located only three blocks from the International Bridge and Ray couldn't wait to get started. His first day at work, Ray learned his first assignment: collect a $375 past due bill from the Gold Palace night club in "La Zona" in Matamoros. he would need to talk to the widow of Enrique DeNava who was now in charge of all Enrique's holdings. Ray wondered why the Credit Manager didn't make the collection but it seemed the Credit Manager didn't make collections in Mexico. The Account Salesman didn't make collections because the company felt sales personnel shouldn't burn bridges by doing collection work, but of course the main reason was the Account Salesman and the Credit Manager were Mexican-Americans and were looked down upon by the Mexicans who called them "Pochos" (Poachers). It seems that in the scheme of things in 1965 Mexicans preferred to deal with Anglo-Americans who they considered "pure" Americans, just as they themselves were "pure" Mexicans and not like those poachers who looked and talked like Mexicans but were really Americans in disguise. Yes, better to put up with the faltering Gringo Spanish and frequent misunderstandings than to deal with an IMPOSTOR! There was no other way but that Ray should make the collection. Ray was no neophyte to Boy's Town; he had taken his share of customers to dinner and "The Tour". Ray always paid, or I should say let the company pay, for dinner and drinks for his customers, but both Ray and the company felt it wise to draw the line on paying for a girl for a client. I don't know that Ray or the company could articulate an explanation for this. It could have been that they felt the client's sex life was too personal an affair to be financed with company money or there could have been deep concerns for culpability in matters of venereal disease or , God forbid, public disclosure. You never knew when some local fundamentalist preacher would go on a rampage into Boy's Town, as the police say "kicking ass and TAKING NAMES". For the local businessmen another pitfall is turning a corner and coming face to face with his teenage son. This is followed by inept excuses on both sides for being there and a final commitment on both sides that "we won't discuss this with your mother, OK?"
Ray knew the drill. The personnel in Boy's Town don't get up much earlier than 4 PM. After all they worked until 4 am, so you don't go collecting money at 2pm, at least not if you want to COLLECT the money. Ray planned his collection trip to arrive in Boy's Town around 1 am. The night's frantic rush should be over by then, most of the clients having either hit the showers already or possibly having some dysfunctional problems back in the room. That first night Ray entered the Gold Palace, admired the beautiful Monterrey Terrazzo dance floor bordered by underground lighted glass bricks and was reminded by the signs on the wall that Brownsville and Matamoros had the finest sign artists this side of Dallas or that side of Mexico City. La Senora DeNava was behind the cash register; if the Gold Palace should turn into The Alamo, that is where the Senora would remain to take her last stand to fight and die there behind her cash register. The Senora looked like she just might have fought at the Alamo, although on which side was anyone's guess.
Page 5 of 7
Her hair, lacquered high gloss jet black, stood at least four inches above Dolly Parton's and her figure, once slender and supple, was now reminiscent of Earnest Borgnine's ample shape.. But unlike Ray, la Senora had IT, la Senora had CLASS, la Senora had PRESENCE; when the Senora walked into the room, everyone looked and if they didn't already know asked "Who is that?". Ray went to the bar which ran straight from the cash register on the west to the Carta Blanca pin-up girl on the East wall, and sat down on the stool nearest the cash register. La Senora made no acknowledgment of his presence. When offered service by the bartender, Ray explained that he was there to see La Senora. The bartender whispered in the Senora's ear and returned to say that the Senora could not see Ray at that time because she was expecting very important visitors very shortly. She suggested Wednesday. Ray left
Wednesday at l am (actually Thursday) found Ray sitting on the same stool, but this time la Senora moved the three feet away from the cash register to ask Ray if he would like a drink. The bartender was instructed to bring Ray a Tom Collins. Within the next fifteen minutes Ray exhausted his two semesters of high school Spanish as well as his two semesters of college Spanish and was well on the way to exhausting the conversational Spanish he had picked up in late night Spanish language drive-in movies, when la Senora finally asked how she might be of service. Ray presented her with the statement for $350 and waited for the explosion La Senora looked at the statement for several moments and very calmly stated something to the effect that, "yo no voy pagar cagada sin la firma de mi esposo!" This was said softly but with a firmness that made one stop and think which is what Ray was doing after having made polite gestures of departure and walking with measured calm back to his car. 'Ray's mind was wondering if there had even been a signature since deals in Mexico were often done on word of mouth trust as a matter of honor and the second question was, would the Senora accept a carbon copy of the signature?. The original had already been mailed with the first statement. Thursday....
Thursday at l am (actually Friday) and Ray was on the same stool going through the same ritual wondering if he were indeed sipping the same Tom Collins but this time passing a carbon copy of the company invoice which showed the signature of Enrique DeNava. Enrique' s signature was surprisingly small labored and cramped for one of his importance and in a Country which prides itself on some of the most originally creative signatures on earth. Ray felt himself relax all over as the Senora turned back to him with tears in her eyes, her finger caressing the carbon copy signature, saying, "Es la firma de mi Esposo!" She seemed to pose for a moment and then placed the invoice into her purse below the cash register turned around and opened the right side of an old fashioned cold drink box (the left side had trays of Mexican money) and removed a stack of American money. Returning to the bar she dealt a hand of three one hundred dollar bills, two twenty dollar bills and one ten dollar bill. Ray thanked the Senora adequately, but not profusely, rose with the customary "Con Permiso?" and upon receiving the "Es propio" placed the money in his wallet and walked calmly, with every cell in his body trembling, back to his car. It did not escape Ray that he was in an area where people had been murdered for less than $4. He tried to remember how many people witnessed him receiving the money. When Ray got home HE took a shower and then lay awake all night. That was over and he would never have to go there again without an earlier hour and a number of clients. Ray now realized why the Credit Manager would not go to collect the debt. He was afraid of the Senora and the people who took orders from her.
Page 6 of 7
Shortly after the collection had been made the Account Salesman approached Ray and they agreed to exchange accounts; the salesman would work Ray's contractor accounts on the American side of the river and Ray would work the salesman's Mexican accounts. It was an exchange made in heaven and Ray's command of the Spanish language began to improve by leaps and bounds and then one day.....
Two very sophisticated, well dressed Mexican gentlemen entered the store and asked to speak with Senor Raymondo Weelleeams. Ray was told that the Senora De Nava wished to speak with him. It was arranged that Ray would be at the Gold Palace at l am that very night.
It was the same stool; it seemed like the same Tom Collins and it was then that the Senora DeNava told Ray she wanted him to be the decorator for her whole establishment. She wanted to create an environment in the rooms as well as in the night club area that would make American men feel at home. Ray was introduced to one of the men who delivered the Senora's message and informed that he was the Senora's contractor and would sign for all paints, supplies and spray guns needed to do the job. The Senora stated there was only one area in which she would be adamant.: She wanted the Monterey Terrazzo covered with bright red vinyl-asbestos floor tile. Ray hoped that no one he knew would ever find out he had been a part of that undertaking. "Undertaking" being a perfect choice of words because he felt like the undertaker at the funeral of a piece of hand made art which also had historical significance. But, then was then, now is now and La Senora is La Senora. The Show Goes On.
The survey of the Gold Palace begins the next morning and Ray is relieved to find that he will have almost no contact with La Senora. The rooms are measured; the colors are selected: soft greens, blues, pinks, yellows and tans are sprinkled throughout the establishment. One room which has a large bed with a large mirror for a headboard and built in chairs with arm-rests and drink holders around three sides of the room is given very special attention and decorated with turquoise and violet. This was the era of emergence from the sanctuary of dark colors of gloom that men returning home from World War Two retreated into and just before the era of 5000 shades of off white. Ray had dealt with colors for schools, offices and motels as well as residences so this was not a difficult undertaking. The only problem was the look of distaste on the faces of all the workers on the project. Certainly these were not the colors they would have chosen and not the colors they were accustomed to applying. Ray drank a toast to that team of fantastic sign painters from Mexico City who now lived in Matamoros and worked the two cities, as the beautiful Carta Blanca pin-up girls were painted over. Ray wondered if someday archaeologists might be able to dust away the washable latex coating and discover those icons to brothel life as had been done in Rome and Carthage.
This project lasted a little over four months during which time Ray became a "contrabandista" (one who smuggles materials across International Boundaries without benefit of customs). Ray had a Chevrolet station wagon which he drove for the better part of a year without a spare tire because there was always a load of paint, floor tile, adhesive or spray gun parts in the spare tire compartment. The project finally came to an end. Ray was tired of it. The workers had a long run of employment. The Senora seemed happy with it and the customers didn't seem to notice it. They just kept on looking at the girls. So it goes.
Page 7 of 7
There's no punch line to Ray's story. It just sort of winds down. Ray became disenchanted with the Paint Company, was offered and took a good job in Corpus Christi with a more socially oriented organization and began to commute back and forth between Brownsville and Corpus Christi to permit his children to finish their school year in Brownsville. On one of his visits, the Credit Manager asked Ray to please go to the Senora and collect $400 which was about 90 days past due and the Senora would have nothing to do with the Credit Manager. Ray knew the Credit Manager hadn't even gone to see the Senora because of his fear and so refused to make the collection for the very simple reason that he was no longer an employee.. The Credit Manager cried a lot and finally asked how much Ray would charge to make the collection. Ray answered immediately, "fifty percent". The Credit Manager groaned but agreed, whereupon Ray pulled out his wallet and counted out $200 for the Credit Manager. Ray had been to the Gold Palace the night before and knowing the account was past due had already collected the $400 from a Senora DeNava who had no idea Ray no longer worked for The Paint Company. This gave Ray every right to require a collection fee. The Credit Manager could just as easily charge off $400 as $200 so probably put the $200 in his own pocket. The Senora paid her bill. The Credit Manager made up for any reduction in his next year's bonus, Ray made an adequate finder's fee and of course the Company, who has always made the rules, has built-in ways of guaranteeing that it doesn't get hurt too badly for too long.
But the real winner was Ray Williams who walked away from this adventure knowing he was one of the few citizens of Texas and the United States who had ever been the Interior Decorator of Record of the Best Decorated Little Whorehouse in Mexico.
Chennai Central, erstwhile Madras Central, is the main railway terminus in the city of Chennai, formerly known as Madras. It lies adjacent to the current headquarters of the Southern Railway, as well as the Ripon Building, and is one of the most important railway hubs in South India. The other major railway hub stations in the city are Chennai Egmore and Tambaram. Chennai Central connects the city to New Delhi and prominent cities of India such as Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Coimbatore, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mumbai, Patna, Varanasi, Thiruvananthapuram, Visakhapatnam and so forth. The 142-year-old building of the railway station, one of the most prominent landmarks of Chennai, was designed by architect George Harding. Along with Chennai Beach, the station is also a main hub for the Chennai Suburban Railway system.
Chennai Central serves as a symbolic landmark for people in South India as this station served as the main gateway for all people who travelled to South India during the British times. About 350,000 passengers use the terminus every day. Chennai Egmore, Coimbatore Junction and Chennai Central are the most profitable stations of Southern Railways. As per a report published in 2007 by the Indian Railways, Chennai Central and Secunderabad were awarded 183 points out of a maximum of 300 for cleanliness, the highest in the country.
HISTORY
Marking the initial days of the railways in the Indian Subcontinent, the Madras Railway Company began to network South India in 1856. The first station was built at Royapuram, which remained the main station at that time. Expansion of the Madras Railways network, particularly the completion of the Madras–Vyasarpadi line, called for a second station in Madras, resulting in Madras Central coming into being.
Madras Central was built in 1873 at Parktown as a second terminus to decongest the Royapuram harbour station, which was being utilised for port movements. The station was built on the open grounds that had once been called John Pereira's Gardens, belonging to Joao Pereira de Faria (John Pereira), a Portuguese merchant in the port town of Negapatam (present day Nagapattinam) who settled in Madras in 1660. The garden had a house used by Pereira for rest and recreation. Having fallen into disuse, the garden had become a gaming den, with cock-fighting being the favourite sport at that time, until when the Trinity Chapel was built nearby in 1831 and the Railways moved into the area in the 1870s.
In 1907, Madras Central was made the Madras Railway Company's main station. The station gained prominence after the beach line was extended further south in the same year, and Royapuram was no longer a terminus for Madras. All trains were then terminated at Madras Central instead. The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company was formed in 1908 and took over the Central station from the Madras Railway Company. The station's position was further strengthened after the construction of the headquarters of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway (erstwhile Madras Railway and now known as the Southern Railway) adjacent to it in 1922.
Madras Central was part of South Indian Railway Company during the British rule. The company was established in 1890 and was initially headquartered in Trichinopoly. Egmore Railway Station was made its northern terminus in 1908. It was then shifted to Madurai and later to Madras Central. With the opening of the Egmore Railway Station, plans were first made of linking Madras Central and Egmore, which was later dropped. The company operated a suburban electric train service for Madras city from May 1931 onwards in the Madras Beach-Tambaram section. In 1959, additional changes were made to the station. Electrification of the lines at the station began in 1979, when the section up to Gummidipoondi was electrified on 13 April 1979. The lines up to Tiruvallur were electrified on 29 November 1979 while the tracks along Platforms 1 to 7 were electrified on 29 December 1979.
EXPANSION
In the 1980s, the Southern Railway required land for expansion of the terminus and was looking for the erstwhile Moore Market building located next to the terminus. In 1985, when the market building caught fire and was destroyed, the structure was transferred to the Railways by the government, and the Railways built a 13-storied complex to house the suburban terminus and railway reservation counter. The land in front of the building was made into a car park. Following the renaming of the city of Madras in 1996, the station became known as Chennai Central. Due to increasing passenger movement, the main building was extended in 1998 with the addition of a new building on the western side with a similar architecture to the original. After this duplication of the main building, the station had 12 platforms. Capacity at the station was further augmented when the multi-storeyed Moore Market Complex was made a dedicated terminus with three separate platforms for the Chennai Suburban Railway system. In the 1990s, when the IRCTC was formed, modular stalls came up and food plazas were set up.
In 2005, the buildings were painted a light brown colour, but concurring with the views of a campaign by the citizens of Chennai and also to retain the old nostalgic charm, they were repainted in their original brick-red color. The station is the first in India to be placed on the cyber map.
LOCATION
The terminus lies on the southern arm of the diamond junction of Chennai's railway network, where all the lines of the Chennai Suburban Railway meet. The terminus is located about 19 km from Chennai International Airport. The main entrance is located at Park Town at the intersection of the arterial Poonamallee High Road, Pallavan Salai, and Wall Tax Road between the People's Park and the Southern Railways headquarters. The station premises is located on either side of the Buckingham Canal, formerly known as Cochrane's Canal, which separates the main station and the suburban terminus. Wall Tax Road runs alongside the station on the eastern side. There are two other entrances on the eastern and western sides of the complex. The eastern entrance on Wall Tax Road leads to platform no. 1, and the western entrance lies at the entrance of the suburban terminus. The station is connected with the Park railway station and the Government General Hospital, both located across the road, by means of subways. During the building of the Chennai Metro the connection from Chennai Park to Chennai Central is by means of a steel footbridge.
LAYOUT
ARCHITECTURE
Built in the Gothic Revival style, the original station was designed by George Harding and consisted of four platforms and a capacity to accommodate 12-coach trains. It took another five years for the work to be completed, when the station was modified further by Robert Fellowes Chisholm with the addition of the central clock tower, Travancore 'caps' on the main towers, and other changes. The redesign was eventually completed in 1900. The main building, a combination of Gothic and Romanesque styles has been declared as a heritage building. The clock tower with the flagstaff, the tallest of the towers of the main building, has four faces and reaches a height of 136 ft. It is set to chime every quarter of an hour and every hour.
PLATFORMS
Chennai Central station is a terminal station with bay platforms. The average length of railway tracks in the station is 600 metres. The entire complex has 15 platforms to handle long-distance trains with 3 platforms exclusively for suburban trains. The total length of the station is about 950 m. The main building has 12 platforms and handles long distance trains. The complex for suburban trains is popularly known as the Moore Market complex. There is a platform 2A between platforms 2 and 3; it is used to handle relatively short length trains like the Chennai Rajdhani Express, Vijayawada Jan Shatabdi Express, Bangalore/Mysore Shatabdi Express and the Gudur Passenger. The 13-storied annex building, the Moore Market Complex Building, has 3 platforms and handles north- and westbound suburban trains.
Chennai Central used to have trains with special liveries until the early 1990s. The Brindavan Express used to have green livery with a yellow stripe running above and below the windows; Nilgiri Express (popularly known as the Blue Mountain Express) had blue livery. All trains now have the standard blue livery (denoting air-braked bogies). Notable exceptions include the Rajadhani, Shatabdi and the Jan Shatabdi expresses. The Saptagiri/Tirupati Express has a vivid green/cream livery combination with a matching WAM4 6PE loco from Arakkonam (AJJ) electric loco shed.
The Chennai Central Station, unlike many other major railway stations in India, is a terminus. The next station to Chennai Central, Basin Bridge Junction, is the railway junction where three different lines meet.
As of 2015, all platforms except 2A platforms, in the station were able to accommodate trains with 24 coaches. Platform 2A is the shortest of all platforms in the station and can accommodate trains with 18 coaches. Chennai Central is the only station that has a platform numbered 2A. Though it was built actually for delivering water and goods to the station staff, the Shatabdi Express now starts from here.
BRIDGE
Bridge No.7 across the Buckingham Canal connects the terminus with the railway yards and stations to the north. The bridge, measuring 33.02 m in length and carrying six tracks, acts as the gateway to the terminus. The bridge was originally resting on cast iron screw pile. Following the 2001 accident of Mangalore–Chennai express killing 52 passengers, Southern Railway started replacing all bridges resting on screw piles, and the bridge was replaced with a new RCC box bridge resting on well foundation in September 2010, with ancillary works getting completed by March 2011.
TRAFFIC
On an average, 19 trains are operated daily from the station of which 12 have 24 coaches. About 200 trains arrive and depart at the station daily, including about 46 pairs of mail/express trains, in addition to 257 suburban trains handled by the three platforms at the station's suburban terminus. About 400,000 passengers use the terminus every day, in addition to 20,000 visitors accompanying them to see-off or receive them, generating a revenue of ₹6,590,214,293 (US$98 million) as of 2012–2013, making it the top revenue-generating station of the Southern Railway. There is likely to be around 180,000 passengers in the station at a given point.
The terminus also faces traffic problems. Often, express trains and EMU services that arrive at the Basin Bridge Junction in time have to be detained for non-availability of platforms at Chennai Central. Blocking of lines is a daily challenge owing to the traffic.
SERVICES
Chennai Central is a major transit point for shipment of inland and sea fish in South India through trains. The terminus handles fish procured from Kasimedu which is sent to Kerala and sea fish from the West Coast which is brought to Chennai and ferried to West Bengal. As of 2012, on an average, the terminus handles transportation of 200 boxes of fish, each comprising 50 kilograms to 70 kilograms of consumable fish. The station also handles 5,000 postal bags daily.
FACILITIES
The station has bookshops, restaurants, accommodation facilities, Internet browsing centres, and a shopping mall. The main waiting hall can hold up to 1,000 people. In spite of being the most important terminus of the region, the station lacks several facilities such as drinking water facility, a medical unit and coach position display boards. The main concourses too have long exhausted their capacity to handle the increasing passenger crowd. There are passenger operated enquiry terminals and seven touch-screen PNR status machines in the station. The station has three split-flap timing boards, electronic display boards and Plasma TVs that mention train timings and platform number. A passenger information center in the station has been upgraded with "Spot your Train" live train display facility, information kiosks and passenger digital assistance booths. The terminus, however, has only 10 toilets, which is inadequate to its 350,000 passengers.
As of 2008, there were 607 licensed railway porters in Chennai Central. Four-seater battery operated vehicles are available to cater to the needs of the elderly and the physically impaired.
On 26 September 2014, Chennai Central station became the first in the country to get free Wi-Fi connectivity. The facility is being provided by RailTel, a public sector telecom infrastructure provider.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE
In November 2012, a public interest writ petition was filed in the Madras High Court citing the lack of a full-fledged emergency medical care centre at the terminus. Further to this, the Southern Railway invited expression of interest from several hospitals in the city to establish a medical care centre.
On 15 April 2013, a new emergency medical care centre was opened. The centre has three beds, two doctors on duty and another on standby, four nurses, a paramedic team, and a round-the-clock ambulance. The centre is equipped with oxygen cylinders, an ECG, a defibrillator and resuscitation equipment. The terminus is the first railway station in the country to have facilities of an ambulance.
PARKING
The station has parking facilities for more than 1,000 two-wheelers. About 1,000 cars are parked in the standard car park every day. Since March 2008, a premium car park facility for 80 cars in addition to its regular car park is functioning at the station. The cement-concrete-paved premium parking is located between the Moore Market reservation complex and the station's main building. However, the station still faces parking problems. About 3,000 taxis arrives at the station every day.
MAINTENANCE
Chennai Central suffers from lack of enough maintenance crew, which lead to dirty and unhygienic trains. According to the Railway sources, as of July 2012, Chennai Central was 180 short of the sanctioned 405 maintenance employees, including mechanical, electrical and general maintenance, required for cleaning the interiors and exteriors of trains and undertaking routine mechanical and electrical maintenance of trains. Contracts for cleaning the station has been awarded for a period of three years from 2010 for a value of ₹ 43.1 million. In 2007, the number of dustbins in the station was 28.50 per 10,000 passengers.
On average, about 51 train units depart and arrive at the station from different parts of the country everyday. Of the 102 trains, a 12 are sent during the day and another 7 at night to the Basin Bridge Train Care Centre for primary maintenance, which involves complete exterior and interior cleaning and total mechanical and electrical overhaul. The rest of the trains go through secondary maintenance or 'other-end attention' at the depot or 'turn back train attention' at Chennai Central itself. Secondary maintenance includes filling water, while the third is the 'other-end attention', in which the train, especially the toilets, is cleaned. The fourth category of trains, such as Sapthagiri Express and Pallavan Express, are turn-back trains, which arrive and leave in a short time from Chennai Central after toilet-cleaning and water-filling is done right at the terminus platform.
The station has been divided into two zones for mechanised cleaning contracts. As of 2008, Chennai Central had about 30 sanitary workers employed on a contractual basis in Zone I (platforms 1 to 6). Zone II (platforms 7 to 12) was cleaned by close to 40 railway employees.
YARDS AND SHEDS
TRAIN CARE CENTRE
A broad-gauge coach maintenance depot, called the Basin Bridge Train Care Centre, is located at the northern side of the terminus, where trains of 18 to 24 coaches are checked, cleaned and readied for its next trip after they return from round trips. It is the largest train care centre under the Southern Railway where 30 pairs of trains are inspected every day. The yard has 14 pit lines, each 3-ft deep, to inspect undercarriage of trains, but only two lines can accommodate 24-coach trains. The rest are designed to park 18-coach trains. Five to six people are allotted to each train. As of 2012, the centre has 3,500 employees, a shortage of about 400.
Water accumulated in pit lines are let out into the Buckingham Canal by means of drainage channels. However, as the yard is located in a basin area, water does not drain quickly enough. In addition, the centre faces pests and other hygiene issues too.
ELECTRIC TRIP SHED
The terminus has an electric locomotive trip shed, the Basin Bridge electric loco trip shed, located north of the train care centre. It is one of the five loco trip sheds of the Southern Railway. To lessen load on the shed, an additional electric trip shed has been created at Tondiarpet, which also serves as a crew change point for freights.
GOODS SHED
The terminus has a goods shed attached to it at Salt Cotaurs.
RENOVATION
Chennai Central Station gets renovation after 2010, is undertaken by the building division of the Southern Railway with the technical assistance provided by the Chennai circle of Archaeological Survey of India. the work is carried out to ensure the original character of the building is maintained.The Station building has maroon colour since its inception in 1873.
CONNECTIVITY
Chennai Central railway station is a hub for suburban trains. Suburban lines originating from Chennai Central include West North Line, North Line, and West Line. Chennai Park suburban station is in proximity to the station, thus facilitating connectivity to Tambaram/Chengalpet/Tirumalpur routes through South Line and South West Line. Chennai Central can be directly reached from all suburban stations and MRTS stations in and around Chennai (except Washermanpet and Royapuram) either through its own MMC Complex for suburban trains or through the nearby Park suburban station or the Park Town MRTS station. Currently, there is only one direct suburban train that plies from Chennai Beach Junction to Chennai Central via Washermanpet and Royapuram, and hence there is no frequent direct connectivity for these two stations to Chennai Central. The Chennai Park Town MRTS station is close to Chennai Central station.
Chennai Central is connected to the Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus and other parts of the city by buses operated by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, by means of separate bus lanes near the main entrance, close to the concourse. There are prepaid auto and taxi stands at the station premises. However, only 30 autorickshaws are presently attached to the prepaid counter parking, as Chennai Metro Rail has acquired its parking area for station construction.
The terminus is connected to the Park railway station and the Government General Hospital by two subways on either side. The two subways, which are one of the first in the city, are used by thousands of commuters day round. Nevertheless, jaywalking prevails as a substantial number of commuters prefer crossing the road, at times resulting in accidents.
The terminus is connected with the Egmore station, the other most important terminus of the city, by a circuitous and congested route covering a distance of 11.2 km via Chennai Beach. There was initially a proposal to connect the two termini by means of an elevated section with double-line broad-gauge electrified track with two elevated platforms at Chennai Central, at the cost of ₹ 930 million, which would cut the distance to 2.5 km. The project, approved on 8 April 2003 and initially aimed to be completed by 2005, was later scrapped owing to the expected rate of return on the project being only 1 to 2 percent, poor soil conditions on the Poonamallee High Road, and other issues.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The portion of the Buckingham canal running near the terminus and beneath Pallavan Salai is covered for 250 m, which makes the task of maintaining the canal difficult. After being desilted in 1998, the covered stretch of the canal near the terminus was cleaned in September 2012. Garbage is dumped into the canal via the openings near the Chennai Central premises. An estimated 6,000 cubic meters of silt was removed from the 2-m-deep canal.
INCIDENTS
On 14 August 2006, a major fire broke out in Chennai Central station, completely destroying a bookshop.
On 29 April 2009, a suburban EMU train from Chennai Central Suburban terminal was hijacked by an unidentified man, who rammed it into a stationary goods train at the Vyasarpadi Jeeva railway station, 4 kilometres northwest of Chennai Central. 4 passengers were killed and 11 were injured. The train which was scheduled to depart at 5:15 am started at 4:50 am instead. The train was moving with a speed of 92 km per hour with 35 passengers on board at the time of collision.
On 6 August 2012, a man hailing from Nepal perched atop the clock tower of the station's main building, creating a commotion. He was later safely persuaded back down the tower by the City Police and Southern Railway officials.
On 1 May 2014, the station witnessed two low-intensity blasts in two coaches S4 and S5 of the stationary Bangalore-Guwahati express, killing one female passenger and injuring at least fourteen.
SECURITY
In a first of its kind for the railways, a bomb disposal squad of the railway protection force, equipped with state-of-the-art gadgets imported at a cost of over ₹ 2.5 million, was inaugurated at Chennai Central on May 2002. The squad functions round the clock and its personnel were trained at the National Security Guard Training Centre at Maneswar and the Tamil Nadu Commando School. In 2009, following the train accident at the Vyasarpadi Jeeva station, surveillance cameras were installed at the suburban terminus platforms. A security boundary wall 200 m long was erected along platform 14 to check unauthorised persons entering the station. Two security booths were planned, one each at the main terminus and the suburban terminus. A government railway police (GRP) station is located on the first floor at the western end, headed by a DSP and two inspectors.[86]
In 2009, 39 CCTV cameras were installed in the premises along with a control room. In 2012, about 120 CCTV cameras are to be installed in Chennai Central. In April 2012, the GRP and the Railway Protection Force (RPF) together launched a helpline known as Kaakum karangal (literally meaning 'Protecting hands'). This involved dividing the terminus into six sectors and deploying 24 police personnel for security.
On 15 November 2012, Integrated Security System (ISS) was launched at the station, which comprises sub-systems such as CCTV surveillance system with 54 IP-based cameras, under-vehicle scanning system (UVSS) for entries and exits, and personal and X-ray baggage screening system. In addition, explosive detection and disposal squad have been deployed. The sub-system will be integrated by networking and monitored at the centralised control rooms. Existing CCTV network of suburban platforms has also been integrated to this system.
FUTURE
In 2004, a second terminal was planned near the Moore Market Complex, with six platforms to be constructed in the first phase of the project and four platforms each in the second and third phases. For additional infrastructure, the goods yard at Salt Cotaurs will be closed to provide more pit line and stabling line facilities for the new terminal.
In 2007, the Railway Board declared a plan to develop the terminus into a world-class one at a cost of ₹200 million (US$3.0 million), along with two other stations (Thiruvananthapuram Central and Mangalore Central), and a high-level committee was formed in 2009 to expedite the project at a total cost of ₹1,000 million (US$15 million). The plan included creating multi-level platforms where express and suburban trains could arrive and depart from the same complex. However, the project is yet to begin.
An underground metro station of the ongoing Chennai Metro Rail project is under construction at the Chennai Central station. It is one of the two metro stations where Corridor I (Airport–Washermanpet) of the project will intersect with Corridor II (Chennai Central–St. Thomas Mount via Egmore, CMBT). The metro station, being constructed at a depth of 25 metres, will be the largest of all metro stations in the city with an area of over 70,000 square metres. The station will act as a transit point for passengers from the Central, Park Town, and Park railway stations. It is estimated that more than 100,000 commuters will utilise the station daily.
In June 2012, the first skywalk in Chennai connecting Chennai Central, Park Railway Station and Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital was planned at a cost of ₹200 million (US$3.0 million). It will be 1 kilometre long, linking the station with nine points, including Evening Bazaar, Government Medical College and Ripon Buildings on Poonamallee High Road.
In February 2013, as part of a national initiative to eliminate ballast tracks at major stations, washable aprons - ballastless tracks or tracks on a concrete bed - were installed along the entire length of tracks of platforms 3, 4 and 5 at the terminus. Washable aprons that are already present for a few metres in some of the platforms at the terminus will be extended, viz. 30 metres on platform 3, 200 metres on platform 4, and 50 metres on platform 5, while new ones will be built on platforms with ballast tracks.
IN POPULAR CULTURE
Chennai Central railway station is one of the most prominent landmarks in the city that is often featured in movies and other pop culture in the region. The station has been used in numerous Indian novels and film and television productions over the years. Many films and television programs have been filmed at the station, including:
The station has been poetized by Vijay Nambisan in his 1988 award-winning poem 'Madras Central' published in 1989. The poem is regarded as a modern classic.
In 2009, the Department of Posts featured Chennai Central in a postal stamp.
WIKIPEDIA
The early 1960's was a time of great change for Detroit. The economic recession that had set in in 1958, had cut great swathes from the profitability of the 'Big 3' auto makers - General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Corporation. It had also meant the end for many of the smaller independents, and critically wounded the others.
The other great change it had wrought was the introduction of the 'compact' US models, Corvair, Falcon and Valiant. These models gained share at the expense of the mid-scale, Big-3 brands, and also the offerings in the full-size classes.
These larger model were not forgotten about though. many of them gained space-age names, and used their extra size and market position to become more glamorous. Perhaps, also playing a part, was the rejection of such excessive styling. Though the fins had shrunk from the ultimate excess of the 1959 Cadillac, other stylistic features were still unrestrained. Chrysler had continued to evolve their 'forward look', first shown in 1957. For the 1961 Polara though, the cars reversed the rake of the fins, scalloping them out and framing the tail light, like a rocket-pod. At the front, a wide, concave grille with dual headlamps smoothed out and modernised the 'face'. Most of the central body still exhibited the form launched in 1960.
The companion 'Matador' model was discontinued, whilst the shorter-wheelbase 'Junior Dodge', the Dart, received the front end change, but with a more modest sweep of chrome on the rear flanks, joined by low-mounted tail lamps.
The pattern was set though, and volumes of full-size Dodges fell precipitously. Only 14,032 Polara were sold in the US for the 1961 model year.
As unappreciated as they were at the time, they now mark the end of an era in full-size US stylistic excess, and cut a fine line in a historic car show today.
This Lego miniland-scale 1961 Dodge Polara Hardtop and Convertible have been modelled for Flickr LUGNuts 69th Build Challenge, - 'The Summer of '69', celebrating vehicle of all makes and from any country made through the 1960's.
Kerikeri stone store and Kemp House (and surroundings) - 08 October 2013
The Stone Store at Kerikeri in the Bay of Islands is New Zealand’s oldest surviving stone building.
Part of the first Church Missionary Society station in New Zealand, the store was designed by John Hobbs to replace an earlier wooden store house. The Stone Store was erected between 1832 and 1836 by mason William Parrott, carpenter Ben Nesbitt and a team of Māori. Construction was of sandstone from Australia, local volcanic rocks and burnt shell mortar. Iron ties and window bars were forged by James Kemp, (though these unfortunately corroded the sandstone). Initially it had a wooden belfry on one side.
The Stone Store was intended to be the base of the Church Missionary Society’s trading post, selling produce from the farms at Te Waimate mission to ships, and European goods to Māori. Marsden planned to build a flour mill on the adjacent Kerikeri River, but this was eventually built at te Waimate instead. Stone was used to protect wheat from rats, for defence against Māori and to reduce the risk of fire.
Stone Store
By the mid-1830s the mission stations could not compete with the private enterprise of other European settlers, either as traders or farmers, and the store was not profitable.
The building was converted into the mission library by Bishop Selwyn in the early 1840s. Following the sacking of Kororareka in the Flagstaff War, it was briefly taken over by Governor George Grey for use as a magazine and barracks. After the cessation of hostilities in 1845, the stone store was leased to become the centre of Kauri gum trading operation, and then in 1863 it was used to house a boys' school. The building was sold to the Kemp family in 1874, and was used as a general store, although it increasingly became a tourist attraction. The Stone Store was purchased from the Kemps by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in 1975. Conservation work was done in the 1990s. The store, together with the neighbouring Mission House now form a small museum.
The Mission House at Kerikeri in New Zealand was completed in 1822[1] as part of the Kerikeri Mission Station by the Church Missionary Society, and is New Zealand’s oldest surviving building. It is sometimes known as Kemp House.
Samuel Marsden established the Anglican mission to New Zealand with lay preachers, who lived in the Bay of Islands under the protection of Hongi Hika, the chief of the local tribe, the Ngapuhi. In November 1819, Marsden purchased 13,000 acres (53 km²) from the Ngapuhi.
Marsden instructed the Reverend John Butler to erect buildings for the mission station under the shelter of the Ngapuhi Pa or fortress of Kororipo at Kerikeri, (Marsden, himself, Thomas Kendall and Hongi Hika left for Britain). Using Māori and skilled European labour, Butler had completed the centre piece Mission House by 1822, (despite being interrupted by the return of Kendall and Hongi Hika with a thousand muskets, and Kororipo being used as a base for the subsequent Ngapuhi military campaign in the Musket Wars).
Mission House
Butler’s house was a weatherboard clad, two-storey Georgian design with a verandah and two chimneys. It was built primarily from Kauri. At some point in the 1830s, a skilling was added, and the verandah was replaced with an enlarged design in 1843. In the 1920s a bathroom was added behind the kitchen.
Butler was sacked in 1823, and George Clarke occupied the building until the early 1830s, by which time the Ngapuhi had abandoned Kororipo, but the mission station was strong enough to feel no need for protection.
The house was occupied by James and Charlotte Kemp in 1832 and although initially part of an expanded mission presence, (including the Stone Store), it was later purchased by the Kemps, and stayed in that family for 142 years, until Ernest Kemp donated it to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in 1976.
The Trust has restored the building to an approximation of its 1843 appearance, (although the verandah was higher, and the roof was not shingled). Together with the Stone Store, the Mission house is now a museum open to the public.
source:
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Grumman F8F-2, Bearcat, "Conquest I":
In 1969, Darryl Greenamyer broke the 30-year-old speed record for piston-engine aircraft held by the German Messerschmitt Me 209 when he reached 777 kilometers (483 miles) per hour in this heavily modified Grumman Bearcat. Greenamyer also won the National Air Races six times with this airplane before he donated it to the Smithsonian in 1977.
Grumman designed the Bearcat late in World War II as a replacement for the F6F Hellcat Navy fighter. It was noted for its exceptional climbing ability and maneuverability. Conquest 1 featured a shorter wingspan than the production Bearcat, a special small bubble canopy, a larger propeller taken from a Douglas A-1 Skyraider, and a propeller spinner from a North American P-51D Mustang. Special high-octane gasoline, fuel additives, and putty-sealed gaps to reduce drag greatly increased its speed.
Gift of the Fighter Aircraft Museum
Manufacturer:
Date:
1948
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Dimensions:
Wingspan:8.7 m (28 ft 6 in)
Length:8.4 m (27 ft 8 in)
Height:4.2 m (13 ft 8 in)
Weight, empty:3,488 kg (7,690 lb)
Weight, gross:6,121 kg (13,494 lb)
Top speed:777 km/h (483 mph)
Engine:Pratt & Whitney R-2800, 3,100 hp (modified)
• • • • •
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Turner RT-14 Meteor:
Following his first Thompson Trophy victory in 1934, famed racing pilot Roscoe Turner contracted with the Lawrence W. Brown Aircraft Company to build a new racing aircraft. Designed by Turner and engineered by University of Minnesota professor Howard Barlow, the Turner racer was completed in mid-1936. Following flight tests, Matty Laird extensively redesigned the aircraft and added a larger wing and flaps.
Known as the Laird Turner LTR-14 and later the Turner RT-14, the modified racer placed third in the 1937 Thompson Trophy event at the National Air Races and won the 1938 and 1939 contests. With this aircraft, Turner became the only three-time winner of the Thompson Trophy. In 1939 the aircraft was sponsored by Champion Spark Plugs and therefore carried the name "Miss Champion" on its fuselage.
Donated by the Estate of Roscoe Turner
Manufacturer:
Lawrence W. Brown Aircraft Co. and Matty Laird
Designer:
Date:
1930
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Dimensions:
Wingspan 7.71 m (25 ft. 3.5 in.)
Length 7.11 m (23 ft. 4 in.)
Height 3.05 m (10 ft.)
Weight 1,427 kg (3,300 lb.) empty
• • • • •
Quoting Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Boeing 367-80 Jet Transport:
On July 15, 1954, a graceful, swept-winged aircraft, bedecked in brown and yellow paint and powered by four revolutionary new engines first took to the sky above Seattle. Built by the Boeing Aircraft Company, the 367-80, better known as the Dash 80, would come to revolutionize commercial air transportation when its developed version entered service as the famous Boeing 707, America's first jet airliner.
In the early 1950s, Boeing had begun to study the possibility of creating a jet-powered military transport and tanker to complement the new generation of Boeing jet bombers entering service with the U.S. Air Force. When the Air Force showed no interest, Boeing invested $16 million of its own capital to build a prototype jet transport in a daring gamble that the airlines and the Air Force would buy it once the aircraft had flown and proven itself. As Boeing had done with the B-17, it risked the company on one roll of the dice and won.
Boeing engineers had initially based the jet transport on studies of improved designs of the Model 367, better known to the public as the C-97 piston-engined transport and aerial tanker. By the time Boeing progressed to the 80th iteration, the design bore no resemblance to the C-97 but, for security reasons, Boeing decided to let the jet project be known as the 367-80.
Work proceeded quickly after the formal start of the project on May 20, 1952. The 367-80 mated a large cabin based on the dimensions of the C-97 with the 35-degree swept-wing design based on the wings of the B-47 and B-52 but considerably stiffer and incorporating a pronounced dihedral. The wings were mounted low on the fuselage and incorporated high-speed and low-speed ailerons as well as a sophisticated flap and spoiler system. Four Pratt & Whitney JT3 turbojet engines, each producing 10,000 pounds of thrust, were mounted on struts beneath the wings.
Upon the Dash 80's first flight on July 15, 1954, (the 34th anniversary of the founding of the Boeing Company) Boeing clearly had a winner. Flying 100 miles per hour faster than the de Havilland Comet and significantly larger, the new Boeing had a maximum range of more than 3,500 miles. As hoped, the Air Force bought 29 examples of the design as a tanker/transport after they convinced Boeing to widen the design by 12 inches. Satisfied, the Air Force designated it the KC-135A. A total of 732 KC-135s were built.
Quickly Boeing turned its attention to selling the airline industry on this new jet transport. Clearly the industry was impressed with the capabilities of the prototype 707 but never more so than at the Gold Cup hydroplane races held on Lake Washington in Seattle, in August 1955. During the festivities surrounding this event, Boeing had gathered many airline representatives to enjoy the competition and witness a fly past of the new Dash 80. To the audience's intense delight and Boeing's profound shock, test pilot Alvin "Tex" Johnston barrel-rolled the Dash 80 over the lake in full view of thousands of astonished spectators. Johnston vividly displayed the superior strength and performance of this new jet, readily convincing the airline industry to buy this new airliner.
In searching for a market, Boeing found a ready customer in Pan American Airway's president Juan Trippe. Trippe had been spending much of his time searching for a suitable jet airliner to enable his pioneering company to maintain its leadership in international air travel. Working with Boeing, Trippe overcame Boeing's resistance to widening the Dash-80 design, now known as the 707, to seat six passengers in each seat row rather than five. Trippe did so by placing an order with Boeing for 20 707s but also ordering 25 of Douglas's competing DC-8, which had yet to fly but could accommodate six-abreast seating. At Pan Am's insistence, the 707 was made four inches wider than the Dash 80 so that it could carry 160 passengers six-abreast. The wider fuselage developed for the 707 became the standard design for all of Boeing's subsequent narrow-body airliners.
Although the British de Havilland D.H. 106 Comet and the Soviet Tupolev Tu-104 entered service earlier, the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 were bigger, faster, had greater range, and were more profitable to fly. In October 1958 Pan American ushered the jet age into the United States when it opened international service with the Boeing 707 in October 1958. National Airlines inaugurated domestic jet service two months later using a 707-120 borrowed from Pan Am. American Airlines flew the first domestic 707 jet service with its own aircraft in January 1959. American set a new speed mark when it opened the first regularly-scheduled transcontinental jet service in 1959. Subsequent nonstop flights between New York and San Francisco took only 5 hours - 3 hours less than by the piston-engine DC-7. The one-way fare, including a $10 surcharge for jet service, was $115.50, or $231 round trip. The flight was almost 40 percent faster and almost 25 percent cheaper than flying by piston-engine airliners. The consequent surge of traffic demand was substantial.
The 707 was originally designed for transcontinental or one-stop transatlantic range. But modified with extra fuel tanks and more efficient turbofan engines, the 707-300 Intercontinental series aircraft could fly nonstop across the Atlantic with full payload under any conditions. Boeing built 855 707s, of which 725 were bought by airlines worldwide.
Having launched the Boeing Company into the commercial jet age, the Dash 80 soldiered on as a highly successful experimental aircraft. Until its retirement in 1972, the Dash 80 tested numerous advanced systems, many of which were incorporated into later generations of jet transports. At one point, the Dash 80 carried three different engine types in its four nacelles. Serving as a test bed for the new 727, the Dash 80 was briefly equipped with a fifth engine mounted on the rear fuselage. Engineers also modified the wing in planform and contour to study the effects of different airfoil shapes. Numerous flap configurations were also fitted including a highly sophisticated system of "blown" flaps which redirected engine exhaust over the flaps to increase lift at low speeds. Fin height and horizontal stabilizer width was later increased and at one point, a special multiple wheel low pressure landing gear was fitted to test the feasibility of operating future heavy military transports from unprepared landing fields.
After a long and distinguished career, the Boeing 367-80 was finally retired and donated to the Smithsonian in 1972. At present, the aircraft is installated at the National Air and Space Museum's new facility at Washington Dulles International Airport.
Gift of the Boeing Company
Manufacturer:
Date:
1954
Country of Origin:
United States of America
Dimensions:
Height 19' 2": Length 73' 10": Wing Span 129' 8": Weight 33,279 lbs.
Physical Description:
Prototype Boeing 707; yellow and brown.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
Aeroflot is one of the oldest airlines in the world, tracing its history back to 1923. During the Soviet era, Aeroflot was the Soviet national airline and the largest airline in the world. Following the dissolution of the USSR, the carrier has been transformed from a state-run enterprise into a semi-privatized company which ranked 19th most profitable airline in the world in 2007. Aeroflot is still considered to be the de facto national airline of Russia, being 51%-owned by the Russian Government.
After WWII, Aeroflot's route network had extended to 295,400 kilometers (183,600 mi), and by 1950 it carried 1,603,700 passengers, 151,070 tonnes (333,050,000 lb) of freight and 30,580 tonnes (67,420,000 lb) of mail during the same year. The 20th Communist Party Congress, held in 1956, saw plans for Aeroflot services to be dramatically increased. The airline would see its overall activities increased from its then current levels by 3.8 times, and it was set the target of the carriage of 16,000,000 passengers by 1960. In order to meet these goals, Aeroflot introduced higher capacity turbojet and turbine-prop aircraft on key domestic routes, and on services to Aeroflot destinations abroad.
A major step for Aeroflot occurred on 15 September 1956 when the Tupolev Tu-104 jet airliner entered service on the Moscow-Omsk-Irkutsk route, marking the world's first sustained jet airline service. The airline began international flights with the type on 12 October 1956 with flights from Moscow to Prague. The aircraft placed Aeroflot in an envious position, as airlines in the West had operated throughout the 1950s with large piston-engine aircraft. By 1958 the route network covered 349,200 kilometers (217,000 mi), and the airline carried 8,231,500 passengers, and 445,600 tons of mail and freight, with fifteen percent of all-Union services being operated by jet aircraft.
Aeroflot introduced the Antonov An-10 and Ilyushin Il-18 in 1959, and together with its existing jet aircraft, the airline was able to extend services on modern aircraft to some twenty cities during 1960. The Tupolev Tu-114, then the world's largest airliner, entered service with the Soviet carrier on 24 April 1961 on the Moscow-Khabarovsk route; covering a distance of 6,980 kilometers (4,340 mi) in 8 hours 20 minutes. The expansion of the Aeroflot fleet saw services with modern aircraft being extended to more than forty cities in 1961, with fifty percent of all-Union services being operated by these aircraft. This fleet expansion also saw the number of passengers carried in 1961 skyrocketing to 21,800,000.
Further expansion came in 1962 when various medium and short-haul routes were started and respective aircraft types such as the Tupolev Tu-124, Ilyushin Il-60 and Antonov An-24 entered regular service with Aeroflot. The Tu-124 was a jet airliner, technically an 75% version of the Tu-104, while the An-24 was a lighter twin turboprop aircraft in the class of the Fokker F.27. The Il-60 was the latest addition to the domestic services, falling in between both other types.
Development of the Ilyushin Il-60 dated back to 12 October 1951, when the Soviet Council of Ministers published a specification for a medium-range aircraft carrying 50 to 70 passengers and 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) of cargo on routes up to 2,000 km (1,100 nmi; 1,200 mi) with a cruising speed of about 600 km/h (320 kn; 370 mph). The type was to replace the piston engine Ilyushin Il-14 on domestic routes. The number and type of engines were not specified, but jet or turboprop engines were expected and emphasis was put on ruggedness and ease of operations for operations on rural airstrips with a minimum of infrastructure.
Ilyushin’s OKB-240 responded at first with a scaled-down Il-18 turboprop airliner, somewhat inspired by an idea of Czech manufacturer Avia for a smaller, short-range airliner for the CSA’s Central European routes. This machine had only two engines and overall reduced dimensions, but used many components of the original airliner. But it soon became clear that the Tu-104 with its jet engines had already set higher standards, so that a completely new and more innovative design was started.
Internally known as “Aircraft 60”, the machine introduced some innovations while still being a conservative design. The aircraft was a two turboprop-engine low-wing monoplane with slightly swept (20° at quarter chord) wings, a circular pressurized fuselage and a conventional, yet markedly swept tail (both fin and stabilizer at 45°). The aircraft had two entry doors on the port-side before and after the wing, two overwing emergency exits on each side, and featured a retractable stairway under the rear fuselage so that passengers could directly enter the aircraft from the airfield. An APU was integrated in the rear fuselage, under the fin, for independent operation of the air condition system and starting the engines without external support.
The tricycle landing gear had four wheels fitted on the main leg bogies, which retracted inwards to lie under the fuselage instead of into the engine nacelles. The front wheel also had twin wheels, retracting forward in a well under the cockpit floor, and the aircraft’s low-pressure tires allowed operations even from grass airfields or snowy ground. Another novel feature at the time was the fitting of a weather radar in the nose, a civilian RPSN-2 "Emblema" system, doing away with the typical glazed navigator position of other former Soviet airliner designs. In order to support all-weather operations and ease the pilots’ work, “Aircraft 60” was also outfitted with an automatic approach system, supported by the radar which allowed blind navigation.
Despite vibration and noise problems, experienced with the earlier Il-18 airliner, Ilyushin insisted on turboprop propulsion because it was the more fuel-efficient option. He furthermore expected that no another jet-driven airliner would be politically “allowed” along the Tu-124 short haul airliner, at that time under parallel development.
“Aircraft 60” was powered by a pair of Kuznetsow NK-6K turboprops. This engine was one of several developments after World War II by a team of Russian scientists and deported German engineers under Ferdinand Brandner, which had worked for Junkers previously, evolving from late war German turboprop studies. This the post-war development was based on the wartime Jumo 022 turboprop design that developed 6000 eshp in a 3000 kg engine. The efforts continued with a 5000 ehp engine that weighed in at 1700 kg, completed by 1947, and with further weight savings and more modern materials, the NK-6, one of several development directions, became a large single-spool engine that was optimized for use on board of commercial aircraft like “Aircraft 60”.
For security reasons, the engines were mounted in front and above of the wings’ leading edge. In order to keep the wing structure as clean and simple and possible and not risk collateral damage to the landing gear in case of an engine fire, the landing gear was retracted into wells under the wing roots. This measure also kept the engine nacelle’s dimensions in very compact limits.
In order to minimize noise and vibrations, 2x4-bladed contraprops with an automatic feathering system were mounted, resulting in a characteristic humming noise when the engines were running. Due to the lower speed of these propellers, compared to a standard four- or five-blade propeller, the internal and external noise level could be significantly reduced (compared to the Il-18, which could drone at 110db in the cabin above the wings!), even though the lower frequency caused other problems, mainly vibrations at certain speeds that shook the whole airframe.
The standard seating of the initial version, the Il-60A, was 52 seats at a 90cm distance between the five-seat rows (two seats on port side and three on starboard). Alternatively, a maximum of 72 could be mounted in a cramped “tourist class” configuration with only 78cm distance between the seat rows, which became the late production standard configuration as Il-60B.
The first of two prototypes made its first flight from Zhukovsky airfield on 24 March 1960. The second prototype followed in June 1960. Two other airframes served as a static test cells. Testing was successful, and the aircraft entered production at Machinery Plant No. 30 located at Khodynka, near Moscow, replacing the Il-18 in production. Deliveries to Aeroflot began in August 1962, with the type operating its first scheduled passenger service, between Moscow and Tallinn in Estonia, on 2 October 1962.
The Il-60’s production remained only on a small scale, though: being a pure jet, the Tu-124 was preferred by the Aeroflot for short haul duties, as well as by the Powers That Be. Despite the type’s merits esp. in harsh climate conditions (most Il-60 were allocated to Aeroflot’s feederline services in the Soviet Union’s northern regions), the type was not popular among its crews. While the two turboprops gave sufficient power, had good handling across the whole speed envelope and the aircraft had no trouble remaining airborne with one engine shut down, the asymmetrical drag/thrust in this emergency condition was considerable and navigating the Il-60, and even more landing the aircraft, with only one engine was a challenging task.
Furthermore, the stalky landing gear, which prompted the crews' inofficial nickname "косино́жки" (kosinozhki = daddy longlegs), could start to vibrate under certain conditions and wobble, making a start or landing run a shaky if not dangerous affair, esp. on snow-packed and non-permanent runways. Furthermore, two Il-60 crashed on runways or airfields after hitting obstacles ubnder snow - the long front landing gear collapsed. Nobody on board was seriosuly hurt in both cases, but these accidents did not improve the type's reputation among both pilots and passengers alike.
Only a total of 44 machines were built: 18 Il-60As for selected connections abroad (e. g. to Scandinavia and Poland), plus 26 Il-60Bs with higher seat capacity for purely domestic service. Both machines were identical from the outside, though, and all production aircraft featured a characteristic spinal fin root extension that covered several radio and navigation antennae.
Ilyushin had plans for a stretched version (with two plugs inserted into the fuselage in front of and behind the wings) with a 2.2m longer fuselage and a maximum capacity of 85 passengers, and also worked on a jet-powered update with engine nacelles on pylons under and in front of the wings. But none of these improvements was turned into hardware, since not only the Tu-124 had become the preferred short/medium haul airliner for Aeroflot, the following Tu-134 had also become the political favorite, and OKB-240 focused on its long-range airliner Il-62.
Il-60 production already ended after only two years in 1964, and Aeroflot decommissioned its last twelve Il-60s on 21 January 1980, after more and more structural problems (wing spar cracks, caused by the NK-6’s vibrations) had become apparent and several aircraft had to be grounded.
General characteristics:
Crew: 3 (captain, first officer and a flight engineer),
plus another seat for an optional navigator or a radio officer,
plus a three- or four-person cabin crew
Capacity: 52 – 72
Payload: 8.4 t (9.3 short tons)
Length: 32,54 m (106 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 34.3 m (112 ft 6 in)
Height: 11,74 m (38 ft 5 1/2 in)
Wing area: 146.7 m² (1,579 sq ft)
Empty weight: 22.2 t (24.5 sT)
Max. takeoff weight: 46 t (50.7 sT)
Powerplant:
2× Kusnetzow NK-6K turboprop engines, rated at 3,318 kW (4,612 ehp) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 805 km/h (500 mph/435 knots)
Cruise speed: 665 km/h (424 mph/370 knots)
Range (Typical payload, 2 hr reserve): 2,400 km (1,300 nmi/1,490 mi)
Rate of climb: 2,750 ft/min (14.0 m/s)
Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
The kit and its assembly:
“In Soviet Union, Aeroflot flies you!” And in order to prove this theory, this whiffy airliner is contribution #3 to the “Soviet Group Build” at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017.
It’s been a very long time that I had built a small-scale airliner, but then I found a (crappy!) 1:144 Mistercraft Caravelle III in my stash (actually, a re-boxed kit from a company called “Ruch” from the Sixties!), that I had originally bought just for the wings as a pure donor kit. This appears to be a blunt copy of the also rather vintage Airfix kit, but the latter has much more crisp details. O.K., the Mistercraft kit was cheap – but you have to pay otherwise…
Anyway, anything Soviet without an elegant Aeroflot airliner would not be complete, so I tackled this idea on short notice. The project had also been fueled by another project idea: a modern short-haul airliner like the Tu-204, but outfitted with turboprops instead of turbofan engines. For this idea (and other uses), I also had a conversion set from a Russian company called “Kompakt Mir” stashed away, with four resin 1:144 NK-14 engines. It’s actually as an aftermarket upgrade set for the Trumpeter Tu-95 model kit, but came in handy – and it is excellent stuff, by the way, with crisp detail, almost no flash or sinkholes.
With these ingredients, work went on quickly and straightforward, and wings and fuselage were started separately. The wings (a combined piece with a mutual underside) received fairings for engine nacelles, made basically from drop tank halves glued to the upper wing surface. Then the resin engines were mounted to the fairings’ front ends the gaps and the nacelles’ underside sculpted with 2C putty, plus some later fine-tuning with NC putty. The Caravelle’s inward-retracting landing gear was retained, keeping the engine fairings rather short and compact.
On the fuselage, the Caravelle's original engines and their attachment points disappeared. The triangular windows were drilled open into circular shape, later, as a final finishing step, filled with Humbrol ClearFix for shiny window panes - this improves the overall look a lot.
Lead was added in the nose, the retractable stairway under the rear fuselage kept (a very Soviet design detail!) and the Caravelle’s characteristic round fin tip was cut away, to be replaced with a square scratch transplant. The stabilizers were moved down and their round tips clipped, too.
On the nose, a scratched thimble radome was added and blended into the fuselage, for an Il-18-ish look. While these were rather simple, cosmetic measures on the fuselage, the look of the whole aircraft was changed into a much more modern design!? This was even more emphasized when the wings and stabilizers were added – the Il-60 looks very contemporary, nothing of the Caravelle’s Fifties flavor remains.
The landing gear is new, bashed from the bogies of the recently slashed Dragon 1:144 B-1B bomber I abused for my Fastback build, and leftover struts from an Acedemy 1:144 Tu-22M. The latter also donated a pair of main wheels for the front leg, which is, again, from the B-1B.
The new arrangement is considerably taller than the Caravelle’s, but with the large propellers this is a convenient and plausible arrangement, despite a rather stalky appearance due to the relatively short wheelbase. The eight main wheels were taken from the RUCH kit, even though the attachment point would not fit the B-1 struts at all...
Painting and markings:
One can argue about Soviet aircraft design or reliability – but I must admit that I liked the Aeroflot aircraft liveries since I can remember them as a child, sometimes even witnessing Tupolev or Yak jets at the local airport. The white-and-blue outfit with almost baroque trim and details was and is IMHO a very elegant design, worthy of a state airline (which had a menacing, if not mysterious Big Brother image during the Cold War times in which I grew up).
Another interesting fact is that, despite the basic colors were set, each Aeroflot type bore a typical and different paint scheme, plus some exotic designs like the polar service machines with lots of red added.
Consequently, I had a lot of freedom, and work was made even more easy through the Mistercraft Caravelle kit: it actually contains markings for a Caravelle in Aeroflot markings! “Nonsense!”, you might say – but this aircraft actually existed: it was a movie prop (actually Air France’s F-BJTR) for filming “Enigma” at Le Bourget Airport in 1981 (check this for reference: www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflot-%28Air-France%29/Sud-SE-...). As a side note, there was another Caravelle in fictional Interflug or ČSA colors, too, as well as a camouflaged SMB2 Super Mystère and a NMF Mystère IV with red stars on white discs, both playing the role of Soviet MiG-19s!
Anyway, the OOB decal sheet offered enough material for my plans, even though the blue trim was created from generic decal sheet. But door decals and most Aeroflot markings came from the movie aircraft.
Painting was also a pretty straightforward affair: the fuselage was painted white with acrylic paint from the rattle can, the lower fuselage by brush with Polished Aluminum Metallizer from Humbrol (which creates a very bright and clean finish) on top of a Revell Acrylics Aluminum primer coat.
For some contrast to the white and blue I painted the fixed wing parts with light grey, the rudders in Aluminum and Steel, and orange wing and stabilizer tips were added as small, additional contrasts, later even highlighted with dayglow orange.
In order to add some weirdness to the look, the propeller blades were painted bright blue with yellow tips. Unusual, but a common Soviet/Russian/Chinese practice.
A rather simple conversion, but highly effective. The Caravelle’s traces are almost not to be identified anymore, even though fuselage and wings consist of OOB material with only superficial modifications or re-locations. The engines on the wings change the look, too, and despite being massive NK-12’s they are a good match for the compact airliner – I am very happy with the outcome, even though the overall lines look much more modern than late Fifties design – even though no more modern parts were actually integrated? Weird, but entertaining. J
My friend takes a Church member through the good person test. She thought she was a good person.
It is written in Proverbs 20:6 "Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?"
It is a common practice for people to play down their sinfulness by declaring, "nobody's perfect" as if to admit that they make mistakes but overall they are good and God will find favor in their acts of kindness, giving and sacrifice.
It is written in Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death."
The Word of God alone has authority to teach us all that we need to know about what is good.
"I have not departed from the command of His lips; I have treasured the words of His mouth more than my necessary food." Job 23:12
It is written in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
And God is the source of all knowledge and wisdom.
As it is written in Colossians 2:1-4 "For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen my face, that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument."
And it is also written in Colossians 2:8-10 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority."
God instructs us in His Word that no one on earth does good or is good.
As it is written in Psalm 53:2-3 "God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one."
And it is also written in Romans 3:10-12
"...There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, there is not even one."
It is also written in Jeremiah 17:9 that "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?"
And in Mark 10:18 Jesus said to the rich young ruler, "...Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." Mark 10:18
And in Ecclesiastes 7:20 it is written, "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."
If we are able to be honest with ourselves it becomes clear that no matter how much we try to make up for our sins of the past we are still guilty.
As it is written in Isaiah 64:6 "For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away."
"The exercise of justice is joy for the righteous, But is terror to the workers of iniquity." Proverbs 21:15
Confessing our guilt does not exonerate us from our transgressions against God. To understand this we could imagine a person standing before an earthly judge who is guilty of a crime and there is audio/video evidence along with witness testimony. The criminal confesses their crimes and pleads guilty but the person does not go free simply because they take responsibility for their actions. A good judge will not let a criminal go free. All of the criminal's righteous acts of the past, present and future are worthless to the judge who must be just in his ruling. A good judge will not be bribed.
"For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil." Ecclesiastes 12:14
As it is written in Nahum 1:3 that "The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet."
Sin is a serious offense. No matter how minor the transgression there is an eternal consequence for every action.
As it is written in 1 Corinthians 15:56 that, "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
And in Ezekiel 18:4 it is written, "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die."
And in Revelations 21:8 it is written, "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
Notice that just one act of disobedience will result in eternal separation from God's love & mercy.
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." James 2:10
"Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you." Proverbs 9:8
As it is written in Ephesians 5:6,"Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience."
Always test every thing you hear and read with the inspired Word of God .
As it is written in 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
And in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22, "Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil."
If we have a fear of God's wrath because we have an understanding of His knowledge of our transgressions against Him then hopefully our fear will lead us to "seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness" as it is written in Matthew 6:33.
In Proverbs 1:7 it is written, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction."
Hopefully you understand as it is written in Romans 9:16 that, "...it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."
As an unbeliever I am spiritually dead in my sins and transgressions because it is shown in Ephesians 2:1-2 that Christians were all at one time in their lives, "dead in trespasses and sins, in which they formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."
With my heart humbled by the teachings of God and with great humility I agree with the Scriptures that in James 4:10 to, "Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you" and in 1 Peter 5:5 "...Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
"Desire realized is sweet to the soul, But it is an abomination to fools to turn away from evil." Proverbs 13:19
Let us be like the tax collector and cry out to God for mercy as it is written in Luke 18:13, "...standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!"
"Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near." Isaiah 55:6
And let us learn from the Scriptures of Psalm 51 what it means to repent toward God as it is written,
"1Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.
2Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.
3For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.
4Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.
5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
6Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,
And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.
7Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8Make me to hear joy and gladness,
Let the bones which You have broken rejoice.
9Hide Your face from my sins
And blot out all my iniquities.
10Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
12Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.
13Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners will be converted to You.
14Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation;
Then my tongue will joyfully sing of Your righteousness.
15O Lord, open my lips,
That my mouth may declare Your praise.
16For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.
18By Your favor do good to Zion;
Build the walls of Jerusalem.
19Then You will delight in righteous sacrifices,
In burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then young bulls will be offered on Your altar."
Repent toward God and put your faith in Jesus Christ alone to save you from the wrath of God.
Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:3
"He has regarded the prayer of the destitute And has not despised their prayer." Psalm 102:17
Let us not worry in our minds about the wrongs committed by others, especially those who appear as hypocrites.
"Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? (Romans 2:1-4)
Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13-14
As the Apostle Paul wrote in Acts 20:20-21 as He was inspired by God, "how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ."
So let me conclude with both the bad and Good News of the Gospel.
"Do you deserve Heaven or Hell when you die? It is written in Hebrews 9:27 that we are appointed to die once and then comes the judgement. Will you be innocent or guilty when you stand before the good Judge who is angry with the wicked every day? (Psalm 7:11)
Remember that He knows your every thought? Take this very important test so that you may know with certainty. Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used God's name in vain? Jesus said, "Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Which of God's commandments have you transgressed? Sin is transgression of the law and I regret that I have very bad news so please listen very carefully so that you might be snatched from the fire that awaits unbelievers.(Jude 1:23) God's Word tells us that "...all liars will have their part in the lake of fire." (Revelations 21:8) "...No thief or adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) and "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain." (Deuteronomy 5:11)
Will you be guilty on Judgment Day? The Word of God says that if you break one of His commandments, you are guilty of all of them.(James 2:10) God sees us as law breakers. If you have admitted to breaking the commandments mentioned above then by your own admission you are a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. God has given us a conscience to know right from wrong and God's inspired Word warns that everyone is guilty and deserves God's wrath.
Jesus said in Matthew 10:28, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
But that's not God's will for His Children. Remeber in John 1:1 it is written that, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and in John 1:14 it is written, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
God dwelt among us in the person of Jesus Christ, fully God and in the likeness of sinful man as it is written in Romans 8:3. Jesus lived a sinless life as it is written in 1 Peter 2:22, "He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in His mouth," He performed many signs and miracles that were witnessed by many as it is written in John 11:47, "Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs." Also John 12:37, "But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him." He fulfilled Prophecy as it was foretold in Scripture Isaiah 9:6, Psalm 22:1-31 and Zechariah 11:12-13 and many more. He received worship as it is written in, Matthew 2:11, "After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh," and in Matthew 28:9 it is written about Mary Magdalene and the other Mary who after hearing the Good News from the Angel that Jesus had risen they met Jesus on the way to the disciples as it is written, "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."
Only God is able to receive worship. "I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images." Isaiah 42:8.
Jesus forgave sins which only God is able to do so as it is written in Mark 2:5-7, "And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?”
God sent His Son to suffer and die on the cross for His elect. (Mark 13:27) Because "...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." (Hebrews 9:22): We've broken God's Law, but Jesus has paid the fine in full with His shed blood on the cross. Taking upon Himself the punishment His Children deserve as it is written in Romans 3:25, "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness..." and God is able to legally dismiss your case. He can commute your death sentence as it is written in Romans 8:1, "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) Then He rose from the dead, defeated death and now sits and the right hand of God. Jesus said, "...repent...and believe the Gospel..." (Mark 1:15) today and trust in Jesus alone for your Salvation, and God will grant you the gift of everlasting life. He will, "...give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you" (Ezekiel 36:26) because, "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Corinthians 5:17)
"Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. “You are witnesses of these things. “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:44-49
Read your Bible daily because as believers our, "...delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night." (Psalm 1:2) and obey God's Word.
As it is written in Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
There are two foundations. One is good and the other bad. Which foundation is your eternal soul built upon. As it is written in Matthew 7:24-27,
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. “The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”
May we agree with the Apostles, "But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)
Free Christian Living resources
www.gty.org/Resources/Browse/topic/Christian+Living
Are you a Christian already? Click the link and read 10 Christian principles for saving yourself some pain.
Shot Tower Taroona Tasmania
Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century.
Joseph Moir
His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management.
Mercury 12 March 1874
Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children.
A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870.
When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown.
The Shot Tower
This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870.
Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland.
Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony.
The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top.
A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station.
The Manufacturing Process
The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process.
Mercury,10 March 1871.
Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849-50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially
Moir’s process was probably as follows:
Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead.
The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base.
The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water.
The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated.
The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum.
Working Conditions
Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved.
Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot.
House and Garden
Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories.
"Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885
Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later.
Later History
Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence.
The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.
The term "Kadayawan" is derived from the Mandaya word “madayaw”, a warm and friendly greeting used to explain a thing that is valuable, superior, beautiful, good, or profitable.
Long time ago, Davao’s ethnic tribes residing at the foot of Mount Apo would converge during a bountiful harvest. This ritual serves as their thanksgiving to the gods particularly to the “Manama” (the Supreme Being).
Various farming implements, fruits, flowers, vegetables, rice and corn grains were displayed on mats as villagers give their respect and thanks for the year's abundance. Singing, dancing and offerings to their divine protectors are the highlights of this ritual.
Although times have changed, this practice of thanksgiving or “pahinungod” is still very much practiced by modern day Dabawenyos. This tradition flourished and evolved into an annual festival of thanksgiving.
In the 1970’s, Mayor Elias B. Lopez, a Bagobo, initiated tribal festivals featuring the lumad and the Muslim tribes of Davao City where they showcase their dances and rituals of thanksgiving.
Later in 1986, a program called "Unlad Proyekto Davao" was initiated by the government which was aimed to unite the Dabawenyos after the turbulent Martial Law era. At that time, the festival was called "Apo Duwaling," a name created from the famous icons of Davao: Mt. Apo, the country's highest peak; Durian, the king of fruits; and Waling-waling, the queen of orchids.
“Apo Duwaling” was meant to showcase the city as a peaceful destination to visit and to do business after 1986 EDSA Revolution.
Finally in 1988, City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte renamed the festival as "Kadayawan sa Dabaw" to celebrate the bountiful harvest of Davao’s flowers, fruits and other produce as well as the wealth of the city’s cultures. To this day, the festival continues to honor the city's richness and diverse artistic, cultural and historical heritage in a grand celebration of thanksgiving for all of Davao City's blessings. - taken from www.kadayawan.com
Photo taken during the Indak-Indak sa Kadalanan (Street Dancing) last August 21, 2010 from the streets of Davao City, Philippines. Entry of Magallanes Elementary School and 3rd Runner-Up placer.
Disabled Army veteran, new farmer and owner-operator of Prado Recreation Inc. Ruben Llamas, leases more than 585 acres from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, where his family and employees farm more than half of that and maintain the rest as a dog training facility, where the U.S. Department of Agriculture USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service NRCS has helped him improve the health of the land and the profitability of the farm with the replacement of six new tractors, a loader, and technical assistance in the basin of the Prado Dam area, in Chino, CA, on Oct. 21, 2022. The facility is 36 miles east of Los Angeles, 11 miles south of Ontario, in what is known as the Inland Empire.
Sergeant Llamas served in the U.S. Army for 13 years as a Combat Engineer and a Scout. He was assigned to the U.S. Army 578th Brigade Engineer Battalion and the California Army National Guard 18th Calvery Regiment. He and his wife have six children; two are serving in the U.S. Army, one in the U.S. Coast Guard, and one is considering enlisting herself.
The basin’s range of environments and topography supports a wide variety of training grounds for sporting dogs, rescue tracking dogs, obedience training, and the ability to provide kennel facilities and the maintenance of waterfowl habitats and outdoor recreation areas. The farm fields of grasses and natural meadows provide nesting. Their seeds feed migrating birds near a hunting club and the broader wetlands. Hunting dog trainers use the forests, fields, meadows, ponds, and islands to train dogs to find game birds for hunters.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers controls the approximately 4,500-acres Prado Dam area. Their lease is for more than 500 acres near the dam and Highway 71.
They purchased the business 16 years ago. The land ranges from farm fields to wetlands and woodlands. Three counties with about 15 million people surround the area.
The farm produces alfalfa, corn, and other forage crops for silage sold to local dairies. Winter crops are wheat, winter wheat, oats, and ryegrass. In the summer, they grow sorghum, corn, milo, and various types of grass. All the fields at different stages of growth are used for hunting dog training, as it provides cover for waterfowl and challenges to rescue dogs in training.
Ruben Llamas is a new farmer who wants to be as profitable as possible and develop his best practices. To help him, Llamas discovered the USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service online at usda.gov. He called the nearest NRCS Field Office in Redlands, CA. District Conservationist Tomas Aguilar-Campos answered the phone and immediately helped him with the information and ways to begin networking. To better understand Llamas’s farm and conservation needs Campos went to see him at the farm in the Prado Dam basin. Llamas was hesitant to provide information to the government and work with them but decided to try it. He now compares his experience with USDA to be similar to a bank customer and their banker.
The business came with 40-year-old tractors that were unreliable, produced higher emissions, and were expensive to maintain. Thanks to the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program EQIP and the USDA assistance with the application process, he qualified for the replacement of six tractors and a loader. Now, there is no problem operating any of them at any time. The robust and reliable equipment accomplishes twice the work in half the time and does it with 30 percent less fuel, says Llamas.
NRCS EQIP provides technical and financial assistance to producers to address natural resource concerns and deliver environmental benefits such as improved water and air quality, conserved ground and surface water, increased soil health and reduced soil erosion and sedimentation, improved or created wildlife habitat, and mitigation against drought and increasing weather volatility.
Equally as old were the irrigation systems. So, next, the pump and mainline, and distribution pipe needed improvement. To test the system Tomas and another specialist came to test the irrigation system. He recommended larger lines and a smaller pump for lower energy costs and better efficiency.
“The field representative, they’re always there, ready to help, says Llamas. With whatever question I have, they will help me.”
During the winter, the lower wetlands and farm fields become flooded with rainwater. The water attracts local and migratory birds. They come to eat, rest and leave the soil richer from their time there.
In the lowest field, seasonal flooding made it difficult to farm. Aguilar-Campos responded by asking a USDA soil specialist to examine the land. Compost was the recommendation, resulting in consistent farming and increased yields.
Because of the varying soils, Aguilar-Campos had a soil analysis performed. It showed that composting would help. The compost revitalized the soil to the point that certain crops needed 30 percent less water, and corn required 18 percent less water. Another result is that weed suppression has improved, so chemical use is down from an already sparing use.
Ruben Llamas says, “It’s been a really great relationship. I mean, I got seven pieces of equipment, so it’s been really, really good.”
For more information about EQIP, go to nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/eqip-environmental-quality-incentives
For more information about NRCS Conservation Practice 533 Pumping Plant please see efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/api/CPSFile/14941/533_NC_CPS_Pumping_Plant_2011
For more information about NRCS Conservation Practice 430, Irrigation Pipe, please see nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Irrigation_Pipeline_430_Overview_9_2020.pdf
For more information about NRCS Conservation Practice 443 Irrigation System please see nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Irrigation_System_Surface_And_Subsurface_443_Overview.pdf
Courtesy Photo
Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century. Joseph Moir His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management. Mercury 12 March 1874 Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children. A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870. When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown. The Shot Tower This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870. Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland. Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony. The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top. A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station. The Manufacturing Process The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process. Mercury,10 March 1871. Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849- 50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially Moir’s process was probably as follows: Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead. The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base. The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water. The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated. The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum. Working Conditions Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved. Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot. House and Garden Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories. "Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885 Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later. Later History Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence. The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.
profitable small businesses
"How I Make 5 Figures A Month carrying a Pizza Box !" You're
Gonna S$#@ When You See ?This...
Click to see the video of profitable small businesses
EVOLVE MAXIMIZE. EXPAND. ACTIVATE
Create Your Vision of a Better You For a Beautiful Life Live a Richer, Happier and Golden Life Style. For more info visit: evolvedlifevisions.com
Become Certified
Achieve your own profitable business safeguarded by our professional, experienced network
Clear, Comprehensive Certification gives you a recognized Life Coaching Accreditation within 6 weeks!
Certification in Evolved Visualization Techniques TM
Evolved Life Visions is an A rated member of WAOLS - World Alliance of Life coaches and Stylists.
Evolved Life Visions supports accreditation programs including those of the ICF - International Coaching Federation
Evolved Guided Visualization Techniques TM - GVT - is an accredited training program
Media and Experts - Say What!?
The latest reports from leading Universities arousing great worldwide media interest shows that neurosciences research proves that Visualization Techniques TM trick your brain into transforming your thoughts and behavior!
This means that when you have a clear Vision of what your want to Maximize and Achieve in your life you will be able to attain it.
Or social Platform
business.facebook.com/Evolved-Life-Visions-386232031583114/
plus.google.com/u/0/103901643902261086078
www.linkedin.com/in/nicole-harcourt-9351a9ab
www.pinterest.com/evolvedlifevisi/
www.youtube.com/channel/UCIwm6uaEbL1-txikirmrNvw
evolvedlifevisionsltd.tumblr.com/
www.dailymotion.com/evolvedlifevisions
www.flickr.com/photos/138201185@N07/
Shot Tower Taroona Tasmania
Australia’s first shot tower, at Taroona, was built by Joseph Moir and is one of three still existing in the country, the others being in Melbourne. Joseph Moir's factory, which operated for 35 years from 1870, manufactured lead shot for contemporary muzzle loading sports guns. Although the factory struggled for most of its existence its most recognisable feature, the tallest stone shot tower in the southern hemisphere, has been a prominent landmark in the district for well over a century.
Joseph Moir
His Shot Tower on the Kingston Road is noted throughout the colonies, and Mr Moir’s enterprising spirit is there illustrated in a most remarkable manner. Though a speculation of a very hazardous kind, he had faith in its success, and his estimate, as was afterwards discovered, was not found on any erroneous basis. The manufacture of shot was a profitable venture under his management.
Mercury 12 March 1874
Just twenty years old, Scotsman Joseph Moir arrived in Hobart in 1829, one of thousands of hopeful free immigrants who sailed to Van Diemen’s Land in the 1820s. By 1840 he had acquired several properties, government employment and a reputation as a builder of notable colonial buildings such as St Mark’s Anglican Church, Pontville. He returned briefly to Scotland in 1844 to marry Elizabeth Paxton with whom he had at least five children.
A prominent businessman, Moir was active in Hobart’s civic affairs between 1846 and 1873, a year before his death. He revisited Britain in 1849 ‘to arrange to carry on an ironmonger’s business’, returning to Hobart with a stock of hardware items and opening a store with his brother at ‘Economy House’ in Murray Street. The business operated until sold by his son, Joseph in 1884. Moir purchased 39 acres on Brown’s River Rd in 1855 and moved to a new house at ‘Queenborough Glens’ (as he called the property) with his family in 1862. He then built the shot tower and its associated buildings and poured his first shot in 1870.
When he died after a long illness in 1874 Moir left his major business concerns to his sons, James and Joseph. Together with Elizabeth (who only survived him by 15 months) and a daughter, Mary (who died in 1853 at the age of seven) Moir was encrypted in the family mausoleum on the cliffs below the shot tower. Their remains were later re-interred in unmarked graves at Queenborough Cemetery after Joseph relinquished the property in 1901. This cemetery’s graves were removed by Hobart Council in 1963 and Moir’s final resting place remains unknown.
The Shot Tower
This shot tower was built by the proprietor, Joseph Moir, in the year 1870. In its erection he acted as Engineer, Architect, Carpenter and Overseer. With merely the assistance of two masons it was completed in 8 months, when the secrets of shot-making had to be discovered. After many persevering efforts the first shot was dropped 8th September, 1870.
Joseph Moir erected his shot making enterprise on 39 acres subdivided from an 1817 grant of 100 acres to John Williamson. He chose his site carefully. A road frontage facilitated straightforward transport of raw materials and product. A windmill pumped water from a reliable creek to a cistern on the site of the current overflow carpark and substantial timber reserves provided fuel for the furnaces and cauldrons. Sited far from residential neighbourhoods Moir could also relax in the knowledge that toxic fumes would blow safely out to sea or over forestland.
Moir probably began building his shot making works after erecting the family home between 1855 and 1862. A stone building above the cliffs overlooking the River Derwent stored gun powder for his ironmongery as well as stores of arsenic and antimony. Another building south-west of the magazine contained the furnace for preparing lead with the arsenic and antimony.
The tower was constructed of dressed curved sandstone blocks quarried at the nearby abandoned Brown’s River Convict Probation Station. A remarkable tapered structure 48m (157 feet 6 inches) tall it features an internal spiral staircase of pitsawn timber and an external gallery at its top which was probably used to store firewood for the upper cauldron. The staircase provided scaffolding during the construction of the tower and access to the upper cauldron and shot-making colanders. The tower is 10 metres in diameter at the base and tapers to 3.9 metres at the top . The walls are a metre thick at the bottom and thin out to .45 centimetres at the top.
A three level stone factory abutting the tower was erected at the same time, then was extended soon after. The stone for the factory was probably recycled from the abandoned probation station.
The Manufacturing Process
The manufacture of shot is an industry which in England has always been conducted with the greatest secrecy, and consequently witnessed by very few except the initiated. This industry has recently been introduced in this colony by Mr Alderman Moir, and we learn that it is his intention to throw his Shot Tower open to the inspection of visitors on Monday and Tuesday next, when the process of shot making will be in operation, on which occasion we have no doubt many of our citizens will avail themselves of this opportunity of witnessing the interesting process.
Mercury,10 March 1871.
Shot manufacturing is thought to have been invented by Prince Rupert in the seventeenth century. It seems likely that Moir studied William Watts’ patented method of 1796 while in Britain in 1849-50. Moir’s exact process is unknown — considerable experimentation was required by most manufacturers to perfect what is a very complex process requiring a detailed understanding of physics and metallurgy. Most of Moir’s raw materials would have been imported increasing his costs substantially
Moir’s process was probably as follows:
Lead was prepared in a furnace at the south-eastern corner of the property. Moir added 900g of arsenic (to decrease surface tension) and 6.35kg of antimony (to harden the shot) to every 45.35 kg of lead.
The resultant ‘poisoned lead’ was cast into 7.7 kg ingots, conveyed to the factory, then remelted in cauldrons on the upper level of the factory for small shot and the top of the tower for larger shot. Firewood had to be winched to the upper cauldron. The molten lead was then poured through colanders, forming droplets which became spherical as they dropped. They fell into a tub of water at the base of the tower. The size of the shot depended on the amount of arsenic, the size of the holes in the colander and the height of the fall. Watts’ patent stipulated that large sized shot required a fall of 45.75m (150 feet), hence the height of Moir’s shot tower at 48m with the colander 46.36m above the base.
The lead cooled partly while falling, then completely in the water. The antinomy hardener ensured that it maintained shape under the impact of the water.
The cooled shot, green in colour, was winched to the factory’s upper floor where it was dried and run over inclined glass planes to separate out defective shot (which did not roll true). Imperfect shot was remelted and the process repeated.
The shot was polished in a revolving drum (likened to a farmer’s barrel churn) using plumbago (graphite) then lowered through a trapdoor to the ground floor where it passed through ten sieves for grading into sizes ranging from fine birdshot to large balls. The graded shot was bagged into 12.7kg (28lb) handsewn linen bags stencilled with the manufacturer’s name and sent to market. At its peak the factory produced 100 tons of shot per annum.
Working Conditions
Little is known of working conditions in Joseph Moir’s shot tower. The work was highly skilled, noisy and almost certainly dangerous. That workers took great pride in their trade is indicated by an engraving in a window in the factory, reading, ‘George Matson Premier Shot Maker Tasmanian and Australian’. No further information about George Matson is known. The following descriptions of a contemporary works, Melbourne’s Coop shot tower (now incorporated in the Melbourne Central complex on Little Lonsdale St) provides some indication of the nature of the work involved.
Pouring the lead was ‘an operation which needs great skill and constant watching. The man is used to his work but the novice would probably make a considerable bungle of it’. As the lead droplets fell there was ‘a sharp incessant shower of silvery rain . . . mak[ing] a noise very like that of an overflow waste pipe high up in one’s wall’. When shovelling shot from the water tub it was ‘quite certain that if the man who is so energetically shovelling . . . was to cease from his labours for any appreciable length of time the tank would be soon full of lead. . . . all the while the strange shower descends the man with the shovel is busily at work’. The noise of grading the shot through the sieves was ‘well nigh deafening’ while a woman sat with needle and thread sewing the 12.7kg linen bags for the finished shot.
House and Garden
Joseph Moir began building his residence soon after acquiring the property in 1855. Family lore suggests that he built the battlemented tower as practise before attempting the more substantial shot tower. By 1885 the property was well known for its gardens and orchards with its hot houses, summer houses and conservatories.
"Mr [James] Moir has a prolific little orchard and kitchen garden, which latter, the flower garden and conservatories are watered from a considerable storage reservoir above. An amusing freak of the owner is to invite strangers into a summer house, and to be seated a moment or two out of the sun. He predicts rain shortly, however cloudless the sky — when hey presto: a shower immediately commences, a real earnest one. It is brought about by turning the tap of a pipe connecting with the circular piping on top of the summer house, the latter being perforated round its outside. A little defectiveness in the roof allowed of my receiving a slight baptism of spray, so I must be considered initiated." Tasmanian Mail,13 June 1885
Perhaps the youthful James Moir (he was 30 in 1885) had a better sense of fun than business sense. He had mortgaged the property the previous year and defaulted on his payments two years later.
Later History
Moir’s sons, James and Joseph, carried on the business after his death in 1874. Although James won merit certificates at the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition and the 1880-81 Melbourne Exhibition the business struggled and it was leased by the mortgagors to his brother, Joseph in 1887. Joseph found himself unable compete with mainland competitors when generous colonial tariffs were removed after Federation. He relinquished the lease to his brother-in-law, William Baynton who continued the business until closing its doors in 1905. During these years Baynton’s wife, Florence, operated a tea house in the residence.
The property subsequently passed through several hands until 1956 when 3.24 hectares was purchased by the Tasmanian government and proclaimed a Scenery Reserve. Although it included the tower and residence, the reserve excluded the powder magazine, conservatory, antimony furnace and mausoleum. The reserve was gazetted as an historic site in 1971 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since 1956 it has been leased to several concessionaires and has been open as a tourist site. Various conservation works have been conducted at the shot tower over the years to maintain its heritage significance.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
Aeroflot is one of the oldest airlines in the world, tracing its history back to 1923. During the Soviet era, Aeroflot was the Soviet national airline and the largest airline in the world. Following the dissolution of the USSR, the carrier has been transformed from a state-run enterprise into a semi-privatized company which ranked 19th most profitable airline in the world in 2007. Aeroflot is still considered to be the de facto national airline of Russia, being 51%-owned by the Russian Government.
After WWII, Aeroflot's route network had extended to 295,400 kilometers (183,600 mi), and by 1950 it carried 1,603,700 passengers, 151,070 tonnes (333,050,000 lb) of freight and 30,580 tonnes (67,420,000 lb) of mail during the same year. The 20th Communist Party Congress, held in 1956, saw plans for Aeroflot services to be dramatically increased. The airline would see its overall activities increased from its then current levels by 3.8 times, and it was set the target of the carriage of 16,000,000 passengers by 1960. In order to meet these goals, Aeroflot introduced higher capacity turbojet and turbine-prop aircraft on key domestic routes, and on services to Aeroflot destinations abroad.
A major step for Aeroflot occurred on 15 September 1956 when the Tupolev Tu-104 jet airliner entered service on the Moscow-Omsk-Irkutsk route, marking the world's first sustained jet airline service. The airline began international flights with the type on 12 October 1956 with flights from Moscow to Prague. The aircraft placed Aeroflot in an envious position, as airlines in the West had operated throughout the 1950s with large piston-engine aircraft. By 1958 the route network covered 349,200 kilometers (217,000 mi), and the airline carried 8,231,500 passengers, and 445,600 tons of mail and freight, with fifteen percent of all-Union services being operated by jet aircraft.
Aeroflot introduced the Antonov An-10 and Ilyushin Il-18 in 1959, and together with its existing jet aircraft, the airline was able to extend services on modern aircraft to some twenty cities during 1960. The Tupolev Tu-114, then the world's largest airliner, entered service with the Soviet carrier on 24 April 1961 on the Moscow-Khabarovsk route; covering a distance of 6,980 kilometers (4,340 mi) in 8 hours 20 minutes. The expansion of the Aeroflot fleet saw services with modern aircraft being extended to more than forty cities in 1961, with fifty percent of all-Union services being operated by these aircraft. This fleet expansion also saw the number of passengers carried in 1961 skyrocketing to 21,800,000.
Further expansion came in 1962 when various medium and short-haul routes were started and respective aircraft types such as the Tupolev Tu-124, Ilyushin Il-60 and Antonov An-24 entered regular service with Aeroflot. The Tu-124 was a jet airliner, technically an 75% version of the Tu-104, while the An-24 was a lighter twin turboprop aircraft in the class of the Fokker F.27. The Il-60 was the latest addition to the domestic services, falling in between both other types.
Development of the Ilyushin Il-60 dated back to 12 October 1951, when the Soviet Council of Ministers published a specification for a medium-range aircraft carrying 50 to 70 passengers and 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) of cargo on routes up to 2,000 km (1,100 nmi; 1,200 mi) with a cruising speed of about 600 km/h (320 kn; 370 mph). The type was to replace the piston engine Ilyushin Il-14 on domestic routes. The number and type of engines were not specified, but jet or turboprop engines were expected and emphasis was put on ruggedness and ease of operations for operations on rural airstrips with a minimum of infrastructure.
Ilyushin’s OKB-240 responded at first with a scaled-down Il-18 turboprop airliner, somewhat inspired by an idea of Czech manufacturer Avia for a smaller, short-range airliner for the CSA’s Central European routes. This machine had only two engines and overall reduced dimensions, but used many components of the original airliner. But it soon became clear that the Tu-104 with its jet engines had already set higher standards, so that a completely new and more innovative design was started.
Internally known as “Aircraft 60”, the machine introduced some innovations while still being a conservative design. The aircraft was a two turboprop-engine low-wing monoplane with slightly swept (20° at quarter chord) wings, a circular pressurized fuselage and a conventional, yet markedly swept tail (both fin and stabilizer at 45°). The aircraft had two entry doors on the port-side before and after the wing, two overwing emergency exits on each side, and featured a retractable stairway under the rear fuselage so that passengers could directly enter the aircraft from the airfield. An APU was integrated in the rear fuselage, under the fin, for independent operation of the air condition system and starting the engines without external support.
The tricycle landing gear had four wheels fitted on the main leg bogies, which retracted inwards to lie under the fuselage instead of into the engine nacelles. The front wheel also had twin wheels, retracting forward in a well under the cockpit floor, and the aircraft’s low-pressure tires allowed operations even from grass airfields or snowy ground. Another novel feature at the time was the fitting of a weather radar in the nose, a civilian RPSN-2 "Emblema" system, doing away with the typical glazed navigator position of other former Soviet airliner designs. In order to support all-weather operations and ease the pilots’ work, “Aircraft 60” was also outfitted with an automatic approach system, supported by the radar which allowed blind navigation.
Despite vibration and noise problems, experienced with the earlier Il-18 airliner, Ilyushin insisted on turboprop propulsion because it was the more fuel-efficient option. He furthermore expected that no another jet-driven airliner would be politically “allowed” along the Tu-124 short haul airliner, at that time under parallel development.
“Aircraft 60” was powered by a pair of Kuznetsow NK-6K turboprops. This engine was one of several developments after World War II by a team of Russian scientists and deported German engineers under Ferdinand Brandner, which had worked for Junkers previously, evolving from late war German turboprop studies. This the post-war development was based on the wartime Jumo 022 turboprop design that developed 6000 eshp in a 3000 kg engine. The efforts continued with a 5000 ehp engine that weighed in at 1700 kg, completed by 1947, and with further weight savings and more modern materials, the NK-6, one of several development directions, became a large single-spool engine that was optimized for use on board of commercial aircraft like “Aircraft 60”.
For security reasons, the engines were mounted in front and above of the wings’ leading edge. In order to keep the wing structure as clean and simple and possible and not risk collateral damage to the landing gear in case of an engine fire, the landing gear was retracted into wells under the wing roots. This measure also kept the engine nacelle’s dimensions in very compact limits.
In order to minimize noise and vibrations, 2x4-bladed contraprops with an automatic feathering system were mounted, resulting in a characteristic humming noise when the engines were running. Due to the lower speed of these propellers, compared to a standard four- or five-blade propeller, the internal and external noise level could be significantly reduced (compared to the Il-18, which could drone at 110db in the cabin above the wings!), even though the lower frequency caused other problems, mainly vibrations at certain speeds that shook the whole airframe.
The standard seating of the initial version, the Il-60A, was 52 seats at a 90cm distance between the five-seat rows (two seats on port side and three on starboard). Alternatively, a maximum of 72 could be mounted in a cramped “tourist class” configuration with only 78cm distance between the seat rows, which became the late production standard configuration as Il-60B.
The first of two prototypes made its first flight from Zhukovsky airfield on 24 March 1960. The second prototype followed in June 1960. Two other airframes served as a static test cells. Testing was successful, and the aircraft entered production at Machinery Plant No. 30 located at Khodynka, near Moscow, replacing the Il-18 in production. Deliveries to Aeroflot began in August 1962, with the type operating its first scheduled passenger service, between Moscow and Tallinn in Estonia, on 2 October 1962.
The Il-60’s production remained only on a small scale, though: being a pure jet, the Tu-124 was preferred by the Aeroflot for short haul duties, as well as by the Powers That Be. Despite the type’s merits esp. in harsh climate conditions (most Il-60 were allocated to Aeroflot’s feederline services in the Soviet Union’s northern regions), the type was not popular among its crews. While the two turboprops gave sufficient power, had good handling across the whole speed envelope and the aircraft had no trouble remaining airborne with one engine shut down, the asymmetrical drag/thrust in this emergency condition was considerable and navigating the Il-60, and even more landing the aircraft, with only one engine was a challenging task.
Furthermore, the stalky landing gear, which prompted the crews' inofficial nickname "косино́жки" (kosinozhki = daddy longlegs), could start to vibrate under certain conditions and wobble, making a start or landing run a shaky if not dangerous affair, esp. on snow-packed and non-permanent runways. Furthermore, two Il-60 crashed on runways or airfields after hitting obstacles ubnder snow - the long front landing gear collapsed. Nobody on board was seriosuly hurt in both cases, but these accidents did not improve the type's reputation among both pilots and passengers alike.
Only a total of 44 machines were built: 18 Il-60As for selected connections abroad (e. g. to Scandinavia and Poland), plus 26 Il-60Bs with higher seat capacity for purely domestic service. Both machines were identical from the outside, though, and all production aircraft featured a characteristic spinal fin root extension that covered several radio and navigation antennae.
Ilyushin had plans for a stretched version (with two plugs inserted into the fuselage in front of and behind the wings) with a 2.2m longer fuselage and a maximum capacity of 85 passengers, and also worked on a jet-powered update with engine nacelles on pylons under and in front of the wings. But none of these improvements was turned into hardware, since not only the Tu-124 had become the preferred short/medium haul airliner for Aeroflot, the following Tu-134 had also become the political favorite, and OKB-240 focused on its long-range airliner Il-62.
Il-60 production already ended after only two years in 1964, and Aeroflot decommissioned its last twelve Il-60s on 21 January 1980, after more and more structural problems (wing spar cracks, caused by the NK-6’s vibrations) had become apparent and several aircraft had to be grounded.
General characteristics:
Crew: 3 (captain, first officer and a flight engineer),
plus another seat for an optional navigator or a radio officer,
plus a three- or four-person cabin crew
Capacity: 52 – 72
Payload: 8.4 t (9.3 short tons)
Length: 32,54 m (106 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 34.3 m (112 ft 6 in)
Height: 11,74 m (38 ft 5 1/2 in)
Wing area: 146.7 m² (1,579 sq ft)
Empty weight: 22.2 t (24.5 sT)
Max. takeoff weight: 46 t (50.7 sT)
Powerplant:
2× Kusnetzow NK-6K turboprop engines, rated at 3,318 kW (4,612 ehp) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 805 km/h (500 mph/435 knots)
Cruise speed: 665 km/h (424 mph/370 knots)
Range (Typical payload, 2 hr reserve): 2,400 km (1,300 nmi/1,490 mi)
Rate of climb: 2,750 ft/min (14.0 m/s)
Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
The kit and its assembly:
“In Soviet Union, Aeroflot flies you!” And in order to prove this theory, this whiffy airliner is contribution #3 to the “Soviet Group Build” at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017.
It’s been a very long time that I had built a small-scale airliner, but then I found a (crappy!) 1:144 Mistercraft Caravelle III in my stash (actually, a re-boxed kit from a company called “Ruch” from the Sixties!), that I had originally bought just for the wings as a pure donor kit. This appears to be a blunt copy of the also rather vintage Airfix kit, but the latter has much more crisp details. O.K., the Mistercraft kit was cheap – but you have to pay otherwise…
Anyway, anything Soviet without an elegant Aeroflot airliner would not be complete, so I tackled this idea on short notice. The project had also been fueled by another project idea: a modern short-haul airliner like the Tu-204, but outfitted with turboprops instead of turbofan engines. For this idea (and other uses), I also had a conversion set from a Russian company called “Kompakt Mir” stashed away, with four resin 1:144 NK-14 engines. It’s actually as an aftermarket upgrade set for the Trumpeter Tu-95 model kit, but came in handy – and it is excellent stuff, by the way, with crisp detail, almost no flash or sinkholes.
With these ingredients, work went on quickly and straightforward, and wings and fuselage were started separately. The wings (a combined piece with a mutual underside) received fairings for engine nacelles, made basically from drop tank halves glued to the upper wing surface. Then the resin engines were mounted to the fairings’ front ends the gaps and the nacelles’ underside sculpted with 2C putty, plus some later fine-tuning with NC putty. The Caravelle’s inward-retracting landing gear was retained, keeping the engine fairings rather short and compact.
On the fuselage, the Caravelle's original engines and their attachment points disappeared. The triangular windows were drilled open into circular shape, later, as a final finishing step, filled with Humbrol ClearFix for shiny window panes - this improves the overall look a lot.
Lead was added in the nose, the retractable stairway under the rear fuselage kept (a very Soviet design detail!) and the Caravelle’s characteristic round fin tip was cut away, to be replaced with a square scratch transplant. The stabilizers were moved down and their round tips clipped, too.
On the nose, a scratched thimble radome was added and blended into the fuselage, for an Il-18-ish look. While these were rather simple, cosmetic measures on the fuselage, the look of the whole aircraft was changed into a much more modern design!? This was even more emphasized when the wings and stabilizers were added – the Il-60 looks very contemporary, nothing of the Caravelle’s Fifties flavor remains.
The landing gear is new, bashed from the bogies of the recently slashed Dragon 1:144 B-1B bomber I abused for my Fastback build, and leftover struts from an Acedemy 1:144 Tu-22M. The latter also donated a pair of main wheels for the front leg, which is, again, from the B-1B.
The new arrangement is considerably taller than the Caravelle’s, but with the large propellers this is a convenient and plausible arrangement, despite a rather stalky appearance due to the relatively short wheelbase. The eight main wheels were taken from the RUCH kit, even though the attachment point would not fit the B-1 struts at all...
Painting and markings:
One can argue about Soviet aircraft design or reliability – but I must admit that I liked the Aeroflot aircraft liveries since I can remember them as a child, sometimes even witnessing Tupolev or Yak jets at the local airport. The white-and-blue outfit with almost baroque trim and details was and is IMHO a very elegant design, worthy of a state airline (which had a menacing, if not mysterious Big Brother image during the Cold War times in which I grew up).
Another interesting fact is that, despite the basic colors were set, each Aeroflot type bore a typical and different paint scheme, plus some exotic designs like the polar service machines with lots of red added.
Consequently, I had a lot of freedom, and work was made even more easy through the Mistercraft Caravelle kit: it actually contains markings for a Caravelle in Aeroflot markings! “Nonsense!”, you might say – but this aircraft actually existed: it was a movie prop (actually Air France’s F-BJTR) for filming “Enigma” at Le Bourget Airport in 1981 (check this for reference: www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflot-%28Air-France%29/Sud-SE-...). As a side note, there was another Caravelle in fictional Interflug or ČSA colors, too, as well as a camouflaged SMB2 Super Mystère and a NMF Mystère IV with red stars on white discs, both playing the role of Soviet MiG-19s!
Anyway, the OOB decal sheet offered enough material for my plans, even though the blue trim was created from generic decal sheet. But door decals and most Aeroflot markings came from the movie aircraft.
Painting was also a pretty straightforward affair: the fuselage was painted white with acrylic paint from the rattle can, the lower fuselage by brush with Polished Aluminum Metallizer from Humbrol (which creates a very bright and clean finish) on top of a Revell Acrylics Aluminum primer coat.
For some contrast to the white and blue I painted the fixed wing parts with light grey, the rudders in Aluminum and Steel, and orange wing and stabilizer tips were added as small, additional contrasts, later even highlighted with dayglow orange.
In order to add some weirdness to the look, the propeller blades were painted bright blue with yellow tips. Unusual, but a common Soviet/Russian/Chinese practice.
A rather simple conversion, but highly effective. The Caravelle’s traces are almost not to be identified anymore, even though fuselage and wings consist of OOB material with only superficial modifications or re-locations. The engines on the wings change the look, too, and despite being massive NK-12’s they are a good match for the compact airliner – I am very happy with the outcome, even though the overall lines look much more modern than late Fifties design – even though no more modern parts were actually integrated? Weird, but entertaining. J