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

[corneliuslundie]

Most interesting. Many thanks to both of you for clarifing things.

Certainly any system with brake levers both sides needs a clutch each side. What many do not seem to realise is that what is often described as a Morton clutch is as you describe above, a clutch with a reversing cam. The other side has a clutch but it is not apparent because it is housed within the brake lever "bearing" (for want of a better word) and therefore does not affect the modeller.

But the real reason for this post is to ask if anyone knows when and why the "left hand brake lever" style was dropped. I suspect BoT involvement, but have never seen anything and it might just have been the RCH. Would it have been a safety issue? I can't see why.

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

31 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

The other side has a clutch but it is not apparent because it is housed within the brake lever "bearing" (for want of a better word) and therefore does not affect the modeller.

 

 

Morton clutch. The projection on the brake lever engages with a projection on the cross-shaft, so that when the brake lever is pushed down, the cross-shaft is forced to turn, In the simple non-Morton brake, the brake lever is rigidly fixed to the cross-shaft.

[Borrowed from http://www.gwr.org.uk/nowagonbrakes.html]

 

31 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

But the real reason for this post is to ask if anyone knows when and why the "left hand brake lever" style was dropped. I suspect BoT involvement, but have never seen anything and it might just have been the RCH. Would it have been a safety issue? I can't see why.

Jonathan

 

 

 

So when is clear-cut but how and why less so. There was considerable experimentation in the decade or more leading up to the 1911 Rules, which I think was co-ordinated by sub-committees of the General Managers' Conference at the RCH, much as i described for the 1887 wagon specification a few posts back. I suspect further investigation of TNA RAIL 1080/386 and 387 will reveal more of the story.

 

It goes back to the mid-1890s. I was at The National Archives today, so this is a bit of serendipity:

 

MR Traffic Committee minute No. 29360 of 2 April 1896

 

Communication from Board of Trade respecting the fixing of hand brakes on both sides of wagons.

                              Submitted letter from the Board of Trade, enclosing copy of communication addressed by the Department on 5th December last to Sir Henry Oakley, on behalf of the Associated Railway Companies, drawing attention to accidents arising from the necessity that exists for shunters and others to pass between the vehicles in order to reach the brake levers of wagons, and suggesting that the Railway Companies will consider the advisability of gradually fitting the wagons with brakes on both sides, and include this as a requirement in the specification for new wagons. The Board ask to be favoured with the views of the Directors thereon.

                              Submitted, also, report from the Carriage and Wagon Superintendent, stating that he estimates the cost of fitting the Company’s existing stock of 115,809 wagons with brakes on both sides at about £1:15:0 each, or a total of £202,666, and that if the wagons are so fitted as renewed it will take twenty years to complete the whole of the stock.

                              The General Manager stated that an invention is now under consideration which, it is claimed, can be attached to the wagons, and will admit of the existing brakes being worked from both sides. It was

                              Resolved that it be a recommendation to the Board that the Board of Trade be informed, and that, until the utility or otherwise of the apparatus is established, the Company do not contemplate putting brakes on both sides of their wagons.

 

[TNA RAIL 491/160]

 

The invention in question is, presumably, the Morton clutch.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Compound2632

[Crimson Rambler]

In view of the discussion a few pages back on Midland locomotive lamps perhaps this drawing might be of interest:-

 

 

It was made by F C Hambleton who was one of the better draughtsmen, so while it is not an official drawing it should be reasonably accurate.

 

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

[Andy Hayter]

Having over the years been involved in safety investigations and assessments, there is a clear rule that if you create a situation where someone can create an error, sooner or later they will.

 

I will speculate then, that faced with a rake of wagons needing to have brakes applied or maybe released, if the brake handle is sometimes on the left and sometimes on the right, it is much easier to miss applying/releasing the brake on a wagon, than if the brake handle is always on the right hand side.

 

I would look therefore for incidents where there had been issues of brakes not applied or perhaps not released - leading to fires or even destruction of the wagon through fire.

[Dave Hunt]

5 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

Having over the years been involved in safety investigations and assessments, there is a clear rule that if you create a situation where someone can create an error, sooner or later they will.

Generally known as Murphy's Law.

 

Dave

[corneliuslundie]

Many thanks.

Re the photo of the "other side" Morton clutch, when modelling at 4 mm/ft it would be hard to know whether it is there or not, hence my comment. But I have seen it stated in print several times that the Morton clutch was only on one side. The problem is that once such a statement is made it is difficult to get it corrected.

I don't think I shall be modifying all my wagons to add that clutch - though as many are coal wagons with bottom doors the problems is not as big as it might have been.

Keep up the good work.

And like others I think there is a book in what you are writing.

Jonathan

[magmouse]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

Re the photo of the "other side" Morton clutch, when modelling at 4 mm/ft it would be hard to know whether it is there or not, hence my comment.

I’m not so sure. The photo shows the significant depth of the clutch mechanism. I, like I suspect many modellers, am in the habit of fixing the back of the brake lever directly onto the front of the vee hanger. That’s OK for single sided brakes with no clutch, but for Morton clutch there should be a spacer between the two parts. This would be visible in 4mm scale, I would say, and definitely noticeable in 7mm scale - not least because it would make the brake lever flatter in profile, where it joggles out to go round the axle box.

 

Nick.

[Andy Hayter]

But on some kits, there is a spigot at the back of the brake handle which would crudely represent the brake clutch

[41516]

The next phase of this modelling disease is counting the holes in the brake lever guide....

Edited January 13, 2023 by 41516

[magmouse]

10 minutes ago, 41516 said:

The next phase of this modelling disease is counting the holes in the brake lever guide....

We are all ready there in 7mm scale - Ambis have a full range of guides with different numbers of holes, etc.!

 

Nick.

[Adam]

1 minute ago, magmouse said:

We are all ready there in 7mm scale - Ambis have a full range of guides with different numbers of holes, etc.!

 

Nick.

 

Which they also do in 4mm!

 

Adam

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Adam said:

Which they also do in 4mm!

 

Don't,  don't. Those have already been pointed out to me. 

[richbrummitt]

15 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

Certainly any system with brake levers both sides needs a clutch each side

Unless it is acceptable for both levers to move: The exception that proves your ‘rule’ being the DC brake. 

[Western Star]

3 hours ago, 41516 said:

The next phase of this modelling disease is counting the holes in the brake lever guide....

Swindon has a mutation which is to count the notches in the tooth rack.....

[Compound2632]

56 minutes ago, richbrummitt said:

Unless it is acceptable for both levers to move: The exception that proves your ‘rule’ being the DC brake. 

 

But that is what was found unacceptable about the DC brake in its original form. 

 

The key safety issue was to reduce the need for a brakesman or shunter to pass between the wagons. (Incidentally an argument, at the time, against automatic brakes, which required the shunter to stand between the wagons to connect up, being made compulsory on goods wagons.) I think the requirement that the brake should only be able to be released from the side on which it had been applied must have relied on the assumption that all the brakes in a rake of wagons would usually have been put on by a man walking along one side of the rake, and would be taken off in the same way. Usually that would be the nearside, i.e. the cess or ten-foot rather than the six-foot.

[Compound2632]

I was looking through photos of Midland Met-type Beyer Peacock 4-4-0Ts in the Midland Railway Study Centre catalogue when what appears to be a wagon in the background of one caught my eye:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC item 66673.]

 

The photo can be dated between November 1897, when No. 206 was put on the duplicate list as No. 206A, and July 1900, when it was sent to Nottingham - since I am fairly sure this is a London location - or at least 1904, when it was withdrawn. 

 

The wagon is lettering ...TILLERY, for which the obvious completion is either ARTILLERY or DISTILLERY but neither seems very likely. I was half thinking it might not be a wagon at all but an advertising hoarding, but there's a line of carriages, I think, behind it.

 

I tried Googling "tillery"; that turns up half-a-dozen US citizens with that surname, all of fairly recent notoriety. That prompted me to look in the 1921 Census, which returns 14 people, six whom were resident in South Yorkshire - I haven't paid for the details, but it looks like Benjamin Tillery, b. 1848 in Nottinghamshire and his wife Helen, b. 1864 in Sheffield, living in Eccleshall, and his son Reginald, b. 1884, born in Sheffield and living in Treeton with his wife Ruth, a native of Treeton, and their two children born after the date of the photo in question. (The dates suggest that Helen might have been Benjamin's second wife.) the other Tillerys are spread around the south but might all trace their roots to west Berkshire.

 

So I thought I was on to something - was Benjamin Tillery in the coal trade?

 

That sent me off to hunt through the Durham Mining Museum website. That led me to the discovery of various collieries with the Tillery name around Abertillery, Monmouthshire. A Google Images search turns up this postcard, dated 1922:

 

 

Looks like we have a match!

 

The Lightmoor Index directs me to Turton's Third, p. 51, entry for Lancasters Steam Coal Collieries Ltd., which in 1895 was working Cwmtillery No. 1 and No. 2 Collieries; various wagons of later date than the photo of No. 206A are illustrated. The LMS is mentioned as a customer, so it's reasonable to suppose that the Midland might have been; this wouldn't be the only South Wales colliery wagon to be seen at Kentish Town:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC item 99-0746.]

Edited January 14, 2023 by Compound2632
typo.

[Schooner]

I love this thread. Thanks for digging, thanks for sharing!

[wagonman]

On 12/01/2023 at 21:33, corneliuslundie said:

Many thanks.

Re the photo of the "other side" Morton clutch, when modelling at 4 mm/ft it would be hard to know whether it is there or not, hence my comment. But I have seen it stated in print several times that the Morton clutch was only on one side. The problem is that once such a statement is made it is difficult to get it corrected.

I don't think I shall be modifying all my wagons to add that clutch - though as many are coal wagons with bottom doors the problems is not as big as it might have been.

Keep up the good work.

And like others I think there is a book in what you are writing.

Jonathan

 

The picture that Stephen posted was of the 'lost motion' clutch. There was also the other, rather more noticeable, 'reversing clutch' which normally used the two interlocked cams, but sometimes a lifting link. 

 

Look further down the page at http://www.gwr.org.uk/nowagonbrakes.html.

 

 

Richard

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, wagonman said:

The picture that Stephen posted was of the 'lost motion' clutch. There was also the other, rather more noticeable, 'reversing clutch' which normally used the two interlocked cams, but sometimes a lifting link. 

 

A wagon with brakes operated via a cross-shaft spanning the width of the wagon needs to have a brake lever with the lost motion clutch on the nearside and one with the reversing clutch on the offside, to comply with the 1911 Rules. The brake blocks can be arranged to act only on the nearside wheels or on the wheels on both sides, as later became usual. In that case, on the nearside, the push-rods are arranged right-above-left in the usual way but on the offside, left-over-right, as seen from that side of the wagon. For a fitted wagon, this also determines the position of the brake cylinder.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Compound2632

[corneliuslundie]

I agree that on a model with et5ched metal brake levers one needs to add some thickness to represent the lost motion clutch. However, my experience with cast metal kits and plastic kits is that there is often plenty of "beef" on the joint anyway.

But now I need to look at my 150 or so wagons!

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

19 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

For a fitted wagon, this also determines the position of the brake cylinder.

 

I left that deliberately vague because I was struggling enough with holding a picture of the whole mechanism in my mind. I had to remind myself that with the vacuum brake, to apply the brake air is admitted to the train pipe which forces the piston up. Looking at the wagon from the nearside or lost-motion clutch side, the cross-rod rotates clockwise to apply the brakes (i.e. in the same angular direction as the brake lever). Therefore the brake cylinder must be to the left of the cross-rod, as seen from this side. 

 

A picture would speak a thousand words, if I could find a good one!

[Compound2632]

I've started the Pre-Grouping Railways D294 medium cattle wagon kit. An interesting little challenge is to fit the top rails. I'm unsure what @MarcD intended here; there are dimples in the upright frame members where the rails should fit. I've chosen to drill through the end uprights and the uprights either side of the doors, using the dimple in the centre door uprights to locate the rail. To reach the uprights either side of the doors, I used the smallest diameter bit i have that is long enough to reach, which happens to be 0.65 mm. This is a bit oversize for the 0.45 mm diameter straight brass wire (from Alan Gibson) that I've used for the rail, but it seems to be a snug enough fit - maybe the resin relaxes a bit after being drilled? Fixed in place with cyano. A picture speaks a thousand words:

 

 

These D294 wagons were a single lot of 100, Lot 323 of July 1893, using the 16' 6" underframe of the D362 covered goods wagon that were first built to Lot 311 of February 1893. Nevertheless, they were built to the same drawing as the preceding medium cattle wagons, D293, which were were 3" shorter; Drg. 644. The Midland Railway Study Centre's copy of Drg. 644 [MRSC 88-D0211] is marked up in red with the changed exterior and interior length, and also a 2" reduction in interior height. 

 

The drawing shows a through brake pipe; this is also absent from No. 66. The diagram reports the tare weight of vehicles without pipes, with vacuum through pipe, and with both vacuum and Westinghouse through pipe. That the vacuum pipe is shown on the drawing may indicate that at least some of Lot 138 that were piped.

 

There is also a note on the drawing that piped vehicles were to have fish truck couplings; this is dated March 1892 and probably represents retro-fitting of screw couplings and through pipes, as authorised for 250 cattle wagons an 250 goods vans at this time, recorded in the C&W Committee minutes. Screw couplings were fitted to all of the company's cattle wagons following a resolution of the Traffic Committee in December 1901, with instructions that the work be done as soon as possible. So for 1902, I'm screwed, having only three-links in stock. Accurascale?

 

The drawing also shows a movable partition, to enable the wagon to be used as a small vehicle rather than medium. The mount for this can be seen in the photo of No. 8192 [Midland Wagons plate 248], which is a 16' 6" wagon of Lot 323, but is absent from the photo of No. 66 [ibid plate 249], a 16' 3" wagon of Lot 177, built in 1887. This is curious, since the drawing is labelled as being (originally) for Lot 138, the first to this design, with the partition clearly part of the original drawing, nicely coloured in with ink wash, but the expenditure on fitting movable partitions to the company's stock of 750 large and 441 medium cattle wagons was authorised in January 1893. 

 

All these wagons were built as renewals, at a time when the Midland's reported stock of cattle wagons (excluding any duplicate vehicles) remained constant at 1,485. Nevertheless, they do get a mention in the C&W Committee minutes in April 1885, when approval was sought for renewal of 100 small cattle wagons as medium wagons, at an additional cost of £3 per wagon. This was to be done as the wagons fell due for renewal, the work being covered by Lots 138 and 155 for 50 wagons each. (Incidentally this indicates that in many cases lots were authorisation for a rolling programme of construction, rather than an instruction to start building a batch of wagons.) Noting the stock numbers of 750 large and 441 medium cattle wagons in January 1893, we can see that there were still at that date 66 medium cattle wagons of earlier build - pre-lot list wagons - and 294 small cattle wagons. 

 

The stock of cattle wagons had been increased by 200 in 1883-4, in response to the General Manager's observation that no addition to stock had been made since 1875 but receipts from cattle traffic had risen by 55% since then and that it was getting very difficult to meet demand in the busy season. The additions were the large cattle wagons of Lot 94. The additions of 1875 were 250 built by Gloucester, of which 100 were large and 150 small, just 14 ft over headstocks [Drgs. 101 and 100, Midland Wagons plates 250 and 246, respectively]. Prior to that, 200 had been built by Oldbury in 1872-3, of which 50 were small, 100 medium, and 50 large, and 50 small by Gloucester in 1871, all additions to stock. So the pre-lot medium wagons surviving in 1893 will have been from that Oldbury order, while 250 of the small cattle wagons are also accounted for. The balance of 44 small cattle wagons must have been survivors from two orders placed with Metropolitan in 1869, totalling 150 wagons, represented by a drawing in the HMRS collection [HMRS 18125].

 

Of the 750 large cattle wagons extant in 1893, 650 had been built since 1879, the balance being the 100 built by Gloucester in 1875 - these were all to the same drawing, Drg. 101, originally prepared for the Gloucester order. 

 

The total stock of cattle wagons had risen from 675 at the end of 1868 to 1,325 at the end of 1875 but fell back to 1,285 with the conversion of 40 cattle wagons to carry imported American meat the following year. 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Compound2632

[MarcD]

Exactly what I had ment people to do. Its in the original (Cast 7mm) instructions. I might need to add them to the printed wagon nstructions. Well spotted.

 

Marc

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, MarcD said:

Exactly what I had ment people to do. Its in the original (Cast 7mm) instructions. I might need to add them to the printed wagon nstructions. Well spotted.

 

I know you know I know how to build a wagon, so I wasn't going to comment on the lack of instructions with the kit you sent me!

[MarcD]

The instructions are all on the website as down loadable PDF files.

 

Marc

Edited January 16, 2023 by MarcD