More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.

[Compound2632]

44 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Photo doesn't show a LNWR Coal Tank but a LNWR tender (probably 1800 or 2000 gallon) so possibly attached to a Coal Engine or a Cauliflower.

 

In Tony's defence, given that he's only showing us the edge of the photo, he's aware - a simple slip. He gives us the number, 8261, which is that of a Coal Engine, Crewe motion number 3087, built Oct 1889 as No. 1086, on the duplicat list as 3264 in Dec 1914 and not given its LMS number until Feb 1928 (all according to Baxter) which lends support to Tony's c. 1928 dating - certainly not before.

[Regularity]

The GWR had about 2 tank locos for every tender loco.

[Andy Hayter]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

3. Yes, PO wagons and ordinary railway company coal wagons were used, though I think this varied over time (or the proportion did). I've not really got to the bottom of the idea of the loco coal wagon, whether there was simply operational convenience (which the Midland situation might suggest) or an accounting advantage. But why have a fleet of loco coal wagons if they were only a small proportion of the wagons actually engaged in the traffic?

 

 

 

 

I think you touch on the reason there Stephen.

 

Mineral wagons and all of their costs would be booked to revenue earning accounts.

Loco Coal wagons would be booked to operational costs.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

I think you touch on the reason there Stephen.

 

Mineral wagons and all of their costs would be booked to revenue earning accounts.

Loco Coal wagons would be booked to operational costs.

 

It's trying to find evidence of this, though.

 

MR Carriage & Wagon Committee minute 3646 of 5 January 1900 [TNA RAIL 491/257]:

 

1000 wagons to be marked “Loco Coal”.

               Read Board minute No. 7538, as follows:-

              "The Traffic Committee recommended that 1000 wagons be marked “Loco Coal” for regular use between certain collieries and locomotive depots where they can be kept constantly running backwards and forwards."

               Resolved that the recommendation of the Traffic Committee be approved.

 

On 18 January, Clayton reported that this had been done, the lettering being “Loco Coal, Stores Dept”. That strongly suggests that the work had begin in advance of authorisation (far from the only time, it appears). It also suggests to me that the marking was for operational rather than accounting purposes.

 

This suggests that the familiar markings:

 

 

were not seen in the 19th century and that the alternative style, attested in photos taken at Westhouses shed c. 1900-2 [MRSC 77-11835 and 31316]:

 

 

might be the earlier - it corresponds to the minute, and would be simpler to apply to a wagon in traffic. I've been looking at some lovely photos of Johnson 4-4-0s and 4-2-2s standing alongside coaling stage ramps with wagons in the "Loco Coal Only" style - they are all after the adoption of RCH headlamp codes on 1 Feb 1903...

 

There is only one piece of evidence that I've found for Midland loco coal wagons earlier than this, the 4-plank wagon No. 6693, one of 250 built in 1877, branded LOCO - Midland Wagons Plate 15. This wagon was built as a renewal and presumably the rest of the batch was, so there is no mention in the minutes. Peering at the builder's plate, I have a hunch these wagons were built at Bromsgrove, presumably to an order raised just before the start of the lot book.

 

The North Western had been building loco coal wagons since the 1860s and the Great Western by 1872.

[Andy Hayter]

That is the problem with action centred minutes.  You know what was decided but not why.

 

When still working as the English national in an international company where English was the business language, I was often assigned the minute takers job.  Contrary to common practice I wrote full minutes explaining why actions were proposed/approved.  On more than one occasion we revisited an issue and were able to see not just what had been decided but why.  It was then only necessary to review the new information rather than go through a whole discussion process of pros and cons.  

[kitpw]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

      "The Traffic Committee recommended that 1000 wagons be marked “Loco Coal” for regular use between certain collieries and locomotive depots where they can be kept constantly running backwards and forwards."

Does this minute suggest that the wagons marked "loco coal only" were routed on a rapid turnaround basis "running constantly backwards and forwards" - one day turnaround? Half a day for closer collieries?  In other words, were the loco coal wagons part of a "just-in-time" system with other non "loco coal only" wagons arriving in a more leisurely fashion to ensure an adequate surplus?

 

 

 

 

[Grahams]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It's trying to find evidence of this, though.

 

MR Carriage & Wagon Committee minute 3646 of 5 January 1900 [TNA RAIL 491/257]:

 

1000 wagons to be marked “Loco Coal”.

               Read Board minute No. 7538, as follows:-

              "The Traffic Committee recommended that 1000 wagons be marked “Loco Coal” for regular use between certain collieries and locomotive depots where they can be kept constantly running backwards and forwards."

               Resolved that the recommendation of the Traffic Committee be approved.

 

On 18 January, Clayton reported that this had been done, the lettering being “Loco Coal, Stores Dept”. That strongly suggests that the work had begin in advance of authorisation (far from the only time, it appears). It also suggests to me that the marking was for operational rather than accounting purposes.

 

This suggests that the familiar markings:

 

 

were not seen in the 19th century and that the alternative style, attested in photos taken at Westhouses shed c. 1900-2 [MRSC 77-11835 and 31316]:

 

 

might be the earlier - it corresponds to the minute, and would be simpler to apply to a wagon in traffic. I've been looking at some lovely photos of Johnson 4-4-0s and 4-2-2s standing alongside coaling stage ramps with wagons in the "Loco Coal Only" style - they are all after the adoption of RCH headlamp codes on 1 Feb 1903...

 

There is only one piece of evidence that I've found for Midland loco coal wagons earlier than this, the 4-plank wagon No. 6693, one of 250 built in 1877, branded LOCO - Midland Wagons Plate 15. This wagon was built as a renewal and presumably the rest of the batch was, so there is no mention in the minutes. Peering at the builder's plate, I have a hunch these wagons were built at Bromsgrove, presumably to an order raised just before the start of the lot book.

 

The North Western had been building loco coal wagons since the 1860s and the Great Western by 1872.

This picture of a crash at Great Longstone. It was apparently an empty train due to the lack of spilled coal. It was reportedly in 1910 although I have no evidence of the date. I've stood on the spot from which the picture was taken so I'm pretty sure of the location. 

The wagons appear to be D299 and there is just one in normal revenue livery. I assume that wagon was in loco coal service. 

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, Grahams said:

This picture of a crash at Great Longstone.

 

15 July 1909, according to the caption to photos from the same set in the MRSC catalogue:

 

[John-Miles]

The location at Great Longstone is the bridge to the east  of the village (towards Bakewell) or  if you prefer the other end of the village from the station.

Edited July 23, 2022 by John-Miles
I assumed the line was running roughly north south at this point and I was wrong!

[Compound2632]

45 minutes ago, kitpw said:

Does this minute suggest that the wagons marked "loco coal only" were routed on a rapid turnaround basis "running constantly backwards and forwards" - one day turnaround? Half a day for closer collieries?  In other words, were the loco coal wagons part of a "just-in-time" system with other non "loco coal only" wagons arriving in a more leisurely fashion to ensure an adequate surplus?

 

It does suggest they were intended to be used for "circuit" working, unlike the aleatory working that is apparent from the lack of repeat numbers in the Skipton minerals inwards ledger. 

 

But I doubt that this non-revenue-generating traffic would be given priority over revenue-generating traffic?

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, John-Miles said:

The location at Great Longstone is the bridge to the south of the village or  if you prefer the other end of the village from the station.

 

SK 205710, looking south, from a previous discussion of this photo that I was party to.

[Grahams]

28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

15 July 1909, according to the caption to photos from the same set in the MRSC catalogue:

 

Thanks. I had missed that post 

[Grahams]

18 minutes ago, John-Miles said:

The location at Great Longstone is the bridge to the east  of the village (towards Bakewell) or  if you prefer the other end of the village from the station.

It's on the up side, towards Hassop. Attached my picture of the bridge taken May 2022. The gradient changes on that section were very challenging for the train crews.

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Grahams said:

It's on the up side, towards Hassop. Attached my picture of the bridge taken May 2022. The gradient changes on that section were very challenging for the train crews.

 

Too challenging, in this instance. Up empties suggests Midland sheds in Lancashire procuring Derbyshire / Nottinghamshire coal. One might ask, why work loco coal over this difficult route when there was plenty to be had more locally? To which I suspect the answer is that the Midland did not serve any collieries in the Lancashire coalfield directly; mileage over other companies' lines was to be avoided as being a direct expense.

[jamie92208]

36 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Too challenging, in this instance. Up empties suggests Midland sheds in Lancashire procuring Derbyshire / Nottinghamshire coal. One might ask, why work loco coal over this difficult route when there was plenty to be had more locally? To which I suspect the answer is that the Midland did not serve any collieries in the Lancashire coalfield directly; mileage over other companies' lines was to be avoided as being a direct expense.

After IIRC, the Aisgill accident the Midland was keen on geffing good quality coal for their locos. The loco that got into trouble on the southbound climb had been coaled with poor quality Scottish coal which had been bought for Durran Hill to save money.  After that all Durran Hill coal came north over the S&C.

 

Jamie

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

coaled with poor quality Scottish coal which had been bought for Durran Hill to save money. 

 

According to Maj. Pringle's report, the coal was from Blackett Colliery, near Haltwhistle, and Naworth Colliery, on the Alston branch - both on the North Eastern. There was nothing wrong with the calorific content to the coal but it was generally admitted that it was too small.

[Asterix2012]

On 22/07/2022 at 17:20, Andy Hayter said:

 

 

Wood?  No.  Charcoal maybe.  And if you have to do more work to get your lime, maybe another reason to buy in - provided you can afford it.

 

Various references I looked at suggested calcining at 800-1000C and wood fires just don't get that hot.  Which incidentally is the answer to the miracle of the gold cross in Notre Dame Paris - which survived the intense fire.  It was simply because wood fires do not get hot enough to melt gold.

There is a difference in temperatures between wood burning in an open building and wood burning in a limekiln where the shape will cause a forced draught

 

Think a blacksmith’s forge where introducing a draught  increases the temperature of the coals 

 

One if the issues with lime kilns is burning the line at too high temperatures 

[John-Miles]

23 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Too challenging, in this instance. Up empties suggests Midland sheds in Lancashire procuring Derbyshire / Nottinghamshire coal. One might ask, why work loco coal over this difficult route when there was plenty to be had more locally? To which I suspect the answer is that the Midland did not serve any collieries in the Lancashire coalfield directly; mileage over other companies' lines was to be avoided as being a direct expense.

Was there steam coal in Lancashire?  According to my father who lived in Wigan for a couple of years during the war, the main coal was cannel which is largely used for making gas. I once went to a talk about coal and IIRC the various types are household, manufacturing, steam, coking coal and gas coal. The distinction between the last two was that gas coal was used for making town gas and coking coal was used for making coke for blast furnaces. The coke in a blast furnace has to stand the imposed load from the ore charge being dumped on top of it. Additionally there is anthracite which was a premium quality coal largely used in breweries and ofher food related industries. So it is perfectly possible to have loaded coal trains passing each other going in the opposite direction; used to happen in Chesterfield Midland.

[Crimson Rambler]

Regarding the larger railway companies running fleets of loco coal only wagons in conjunction with PO/colliery wagons, we might perhaps find a (partial) parallel with the oil companies when they used to own and operate very large tanker fleets e.g. BP over 100 ships. Yet large as they were they could not carry all of their company's oil, the shortfall was made up by chartering from tanker owning shipowners as necessary. Conversely if trade dropped off then the charters could be reduced. Having their own ships gave the oil companies theoretically at least more bargaining power when agreeing charter rates. 

 

 

Crimson Rambler

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Crimson Rambler said:

Having their own ships gave the oil companies theoretically at least more bargaining power when agreeing charter rates. 

 

In this instance, the cost of transport was an internal cost. But yes, I suppose it would be inefficient to maintain a fleet of loco coal wagons to meet maximum demand, better to meet the baseline demand with ordinary revenue wagons and PO wagons being drafted in at times of peak demand.

 

Also, if coal was being bought in from off-system, there would be no advantage to using loco coal wagons (cf the southern companies, which had none), e,g, here at Kentish Town:

 

 

[Embedded link to MRSC 99-0746]

 

(That wagon does look as if someone had built a Slaters or POWsides pre-printed kit but not bothered to paint the underframe molding!)

Edited July 24, 2022 by Compound2632

[Rail-Online]

On 23/07/2022 at 10:20, Compound2632 said:

 

In Tony's defence, given that he's only showing us the edge of the photo, he's aware - a simple slip. He gives us the number, 8261, which is that of a Coal Engine, Crewe motion number 3087, built Oct 1889 as No. 1086, on the duplicat list as 3264 in Dec 1914 and not given its LMS number until Feb 1928 (all according to Baxter) which lends support to Tony's c. 1928 dating - certainly not before.

Yes it is a Coal Engine not a tank - Just a typo!

 

Apologies, Tony

[Grahams]

The loco coal discussion has me musing on the rationale for the Midland D607 ('7 plank') wagon which is currently in my workshop waiting for painting. 

Bob Essery's theory (Midland Record No 8 pp32-35) was that the wagons were ordered with bottom doors (no use for loco coal) and then diverted to loco coal use because of an urgent need to replace the worn out ex-PO wagons, which were needing to be replaced in 1911. 

I always hesitate to question Bob Essery's ideas but he did only advance it as a theory in the absence of any other reason. 

Diversion could make sense for the first Lot (760) of 1000 but the Midland regularly show some agility in changing drawings to save money or meet traffic requirements. Why carry on to build a further 4250 with bottom doors and then perpetuate this in 1921 with a further 400 to Lot 962? The drawing in Midland Record, No 3463, is the revised version from February 1921 and is entitled '12 TON COAL WAGON WITH SIDE AND BOTTOM DOORS'. The drawing, unusually for a Midland drawing, has 'LOCO COAL ONLY' script on the wagon itself. 

There must have been a reason for this apparent indecisiveness. It's apparent from photographs that some were used in revenue service, marked only 'MR' or 'LMS'. 

Perhaps they intended to change the loco coal wagons to revenue service later? Perhaps they did? I would be surprised if wagons emblazoned with 'Loco Coal Only' were ever used for revenue service and if so, surely a picture of one would exist in a train somewhere. 

[Compound2632]

An alarming number of pages back, I was doing some modelling:

Here's the result, side-by-side with a 4-plank built from an as-new kit off Ebay:

 

 

Both wagons have the axleboxes changed to grease by my ususal oblongs-of-plasticard method - Evergreen strip, 0.080" x 0.020" (2 mm x 0.5 mm) x 3.5 mm for the fronts and 0.080" x 0.010" (2 mm x 0.25 mm) x 1.5 mm for the lids, the fronts of the oil axleboxes having been filed off level with the bit that loops over the bearing spring and the ribs at the sides pared off. The brakes are modified as previously described:

The "as new" kit provided the brake gear and lever for both sides - an advantage of modelling wagons with one-side brakes only! The V-hangers are cut from 0.020" plasticard. I had made up a batch but I couldn't find them - I may have used them all up. It took a couple of goes to get what looks to me like the correct angle. After all this cheapskatery, the buffers are MJT part 2305, GWR non-fitted wagon buffers (unsprung). I've given up on the Coopercraft molded buffers - not only are they too fragile but I believe they are the wrong sort - the guides are long, so they represent the sort used on fitted wagons. Compare MJT part 2306.

 

I had toyed with replacing the axleguards on @41516's "rescue" wagon with etched ones but in the end went for a repair with odds and ends of kit sprue and microstrip. A sliver of plasticard was fixed to the curb rail below the door to represent the batten that fills the gap when the door is lowered to a near-horizontal position. This is missing from the Coopercraft O4 kit but checking photos, those wagons did have them...

 

 

Bother!

 

Given a coat of Halfords red primer, it's spot-the-difference:

 

 

An end view gives the game away:

 

 

... since I didn't bother to fill the hole for the wire representing the sheet support, as the plan is to put a sheet on this wagon.

 

 

[kitpw]

In looking into the coal traffic questions, I came across an article in the Journal of Economic History (Dec 1999) titled "The Efficiency of Britain's "Silly Little Bobtailed" Coal Wagons: A Comment on Van Vleck" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2566689?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A6a2f650e43452895f7c8fc3628a3b6cb&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents)(I think you can sign up to JSTOR and read up to 99 articles pm - I've used the site a good deal). The article has some interesting comment on the economics of what it describes as "fragmented ownership" of wagons during the interwar years. It suggests a total coal wagon fleet of 750,000 of which 600,000 were privately owned. The 600,000 were owned by 5000 companies, 77% being collieries and 22.5% coal factors and merchants. Comment on the small size of wagons and the costs of shunting/sorting them then follows. It's worth a look - only a few pages.   The article doesn't state what propertion of the 150,000 company owned wagons were "for loco coal" - pity!

 

24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I was doing some modelling

Me too...all this research takes time, but somehow (osmosis we used to say)  improves the models in the end.

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by kitpw
typos again!

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, Grahams said:

Bob Essery's theory (Midland Record No 8 pp32-35) was that the wagons were ordered with bottom doors (no use for loco coal) and then diverted to loco coal use because of an urgent need to replace the worn out ex-PO wagons, which were needing to be replaced in 1911. 

 

I have to admit I'd forgotten about that article, which I have now re-read. I'm wondering what the evidence is for the statement that many of the ex-PO wagons were put into loco coal traffic. There is a well-known photo of Derby works, a copy of which to post I can't track down - it has the Pullman shed and a couple of North Staffs brake vans in the foreground - showing the space later occupied by No. 4 shed (I think) occupied by several hundred ex-PO wagons laden with coal. A crop of the Knotty brakes is given in G.F. Chadwick, North Staffordshire Wagons (Wild Swan, 1993) plate 22, given a date of c. 1890. This, or maybe a year or two earlier, is about the time when the number of ex-PO wagons peaked, with over 60,000 bought and production of replacement D299s only just reaching the 20,000 mark, so one would expect ex-PO wagons to predominate in any yard, not just a loco coal yard. 

 

As to D607 wagons being built to replace the last ex-PO wagons, I'm not so sure. My analysis of wagon quantities suggests that those were just about extinct by 1911 so they were more likely replacing the earliest D299 wagons - but possibly a combination of both. In any case, they were renewals of wagons with side and bottom doors, so it's only to be expected that they would have the same. The D299 wagons assigned to loco coal traffic had bottom doors.