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

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Dave John said:

There was early glassmaking at Finneston in Glasgow and some at Dumbarton, though I don't think it was plate glass.

 

In LNWR Wagons Vol. 1, there is mention of a pair of LNWR glass wagons in 1867 but gone by 1868; possibly from the South Staffordshire Railway. There was early large-scale glassmaking in the Black country, notably chance Brothers at Spon Lane, Smethwick, who produced the glass for the Crystal Palace. Their factory was alongside the BNC so they probably relied on water transport at first. 

[WFPettigrew]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

@WFPettigrew, the c. 1907 version of the diagram sheet has, for the D328 40-ton armour plate wagons, the instruction "Not to be loaded with greater weight than 26 tons to the Furness Line".

 

That is interesting, thank you!

 

That was less than a decade before the expensive rebuilding of the original viaducts over the Kent and Leven Estuaries, so was this an issue with axle loadings when the civil engineer began to get twitchy about the state of the structures?  I am not sure - that would be 7.5ton per axle plus the net weight (so say c10 ton per axle total?).  This is significantly less than the then largest 4-4-0s from a certain Mr Pettigrew (the so-called K3s) which were loading over 14 tons per axle, and they weren't banished from the mainline. 

 

(The Pettigrew larger wheel radial tanks, the so called L2 and L3, also put down over 14 tons an axle.. Now, Mr Rutherford the civil engineer tried for years to get them banned for allegedly damaging his track but that was an ongoing row over their rather frequent derailments mostly on very lightly laid or badly maintained sidings at the iron ore mines or the iron/steel works!  Pettigrew in exasperation sought expert witness support from the LYR who were running radial tanks as well, but Rutherford was determined.  As soon as Pettigrew retired, the tanks were barred from "fast passenger" work!)

 

So if not axle loading, was this something to do with getting them over the summit at Lindal (1 in c 75 on either side) when the FR had limits on the numbers of wagons in goods trains but perhaps not limits on the loading?

 

Curious...!

 

 

[Compound2632]

29 minutes ago, WFPettigrew said:

That was less than a decade before the expensive rebuilding of the original viaducts over the Kent and Leven Estuaries, so was this an issue with axle loadings when the civil engineer began to get twitchy about the state of the structures?  I am not sure - that would be 7.5ton per axle plus the net weight (so say c10 ton per axle total?).  This is significantly less than the then largest 4-4-0s from a certain Mr Pettigrew (the so-called K3s) which were loading over 14 tons per axle, and they weren't banished from the mainline. 

 

The tare weight given on D328 is 18-9-1, so with 40 ton load that's 14-12 or so per axle; at 26 tons that comes down to 11-2. I gather that engineers of the period were more concerned with tons per foot run than with absolute individual axle loading, so a gross weight of nearly 60 tons on a vehicle only 26' 10" over buffers may actually have been of greater concern than a longer locomotive with higher individual axle loading. (The effect of hammer blow being poorly understood, perhaps fortunately!)

Edited February 13, 2023 by Compound2632

[Andy Hayter]

I don't know either of the bridges concerned, but as well as axle loading you surely also have to consider total weight across unsupported sections as well as the weight distribution onto piers.  

 

So a span that would happily support a locomotive and say 3 coaches might not be capable of safely supporting the same locomotive and 3 laden to maximum capacity steel sheet wagons.

[WFPettigrew]

9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The tare weight given on D328 is 18-9-1, so with 40 ton load that's 14-12 or so per axle; at 26 tons that comes down to 11-2. I gather that engineers of the period were more concerned with tons per foot run than with absolute individual axle loading, so a gross weight of nearly 60 tons on a vehicle only 26' 10" over buffers may actually have been of greater concern than a longer locomotive with higher individual axle loading.

 

Ah think you've cracked it Stephen. 

 

Quick calculation - making this change reduced the tons per foot from (roughly) 2.2 to 1.7.  In comparison the "L2" with its side tanks and bunker weighing it down (a little over 55 tons in just under 37 feet) presents 1.5 tons per foot. 

 

So this does sound like either early twitchiness about the viaducts, or possibly the ongoing concerns about mine workings swallowing more locomotives or rolling stock following the sad demise of FR Sharpie Number 115 down into the mine workings at Lindal a decade before. 

 

I will ask the wisdom of the CRA if they have any intel. 

 

 

 

[kitpw]

2 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

Quick calculation - making this change reduced the tons per foot from (roughly) 2.2 to 1.7.  In comparison the "L2" with its side tanks and bunker weighing it down (a little over 55 tons in just under 37 feet) presents 1.5 tons per foot.

Several 30 foot girders intended for the (original) Leven and Kent viaducts were tested before erection with 30 tons in the centre (midspan) producing a deflection of 1/2":  they were also tested after erection with "two engines" loaded up to 1 1/2 ton per lineal foot [my underlining] which produced no deflection but the end openings "yielded an eigth of an inch, rising again on removal of the load". It's interesting that the initial design of the viaduct(s) anticipated the doubling of the track and the paper from which I've quoted here, dated April 1858 (the railway was opened in August 1857) notes that in spite of the heavy mineral traffic there had been no depression in the piles and "but little vibration": however, that was only a matter of months after the opening of the line. If I remember it right, the construction of these viaducts was at least an early use of what is now called jetting to sink piles - indeed, it might have been the first use which is why I remembered it.

 

Quoted from discussion paper at the ICE 1858: The "Description of the iron viaducts across the tidal estuaries..." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=C7iwAAAAIAAJ&printsec].

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by kitpw
spelling again

[Compound2632]

20 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

Quick calculation - making this change reduced the tons per foot from (roughly) 2.2 to 1.7.  In comparison the "L2" with its side tanks and bunker weighing it down (a little over 55 tons in just under 37 feet) presents 1.5 tons per foot. 

 

That prompts me to look again at the D622 gun truck of 1911, carrying a maximum load of 105 tons, and tare about 36 tons, gross laden weight 141 tons. Spread over twelve axles, that's just under 12 tons per axle, about the same per axle as a D328 40-ton armour plate wagon loaded to only 26 tons. The total length was 84' 7", i.e. just under 1.7 tons per foot. So we can infer that the D622 gun truck was designed with a weight restriction on the Furness viaducts in mind. 

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64070.]

 

On the other hand, the sets of three D328 wagons adapted to carry guns would not pass; the wagons alone would tare 56 tons,  over a length of 80' 6", so to keep within the supposed 1.7 tons per foot limit, the additional ironwork plus the gun would be limited to 80 tons:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64068.]

 

One way round this limitation might be to dispense with the steel gun cradle:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64134.]

 

The Study Centre collection has a number of Special Train Notices for the movement of large armour plates, for example:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 25970.]

 

Note the reference to 30-ton trolleys fitted with trestles:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64088.]

 

This is No. 743, one of a pair of 35-ton trolleys, D702, ordered in February 1913 as additions to stock and built as lot 829, dated 2 May 1913. Do those trestles look capable of supporting a large armour plate? Or is this an ersatz plate glass wagon, emulating the LNWR's D99 bogie glass trolleys?

 

going back to the subject of buying in wagon components, here's Bromsgrove wagon works, 25 June 1903:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 61754.]

 

The Bromsgrove works had started out as the locomotive works of the Birmingham & Gloucester Railway. It was here that J.E. McConnell wrestled with the Norris locomotives and, according to legend, the idea of the I. Mech. E. was first discussed by McConnell with Charles Beyer, Richard Peacock, and others. Made redundant by the Midland's take-over of the B&GR, the works were for some years leased to Richard Johnson and Thomas Kinder, carriage and wagon builders, who supplied a considerable quantity of early Midland wagons. They gave up the lease in mid 1854, relocating to Oldbury in the Black Country and trading as the Railway Carriage Company, changed in due course to the well-known name of the Oldbury Railway Carriage & Wagon Company. 

 

The Midland resumed possession and by February 1856 Kirtley was able to report to the Locomotive Committee that the works had been in full operation for nine months, relieving pressure on the rather cramped facilities at Derby. It was thus the first of many outstation wagon works on the Midland system but remained the only one at which new wagons were built. In August 1902 David Bain reported to the Carriage & Wagon Committee that the Bromsgrove works had been building 20 wagons a week for a number of years; this was now down to 10 and would soon cease completely, from which time the men would be put on repairs only. 

 

That's about 1,000 wagons a year built at Bromsgrove at a time when the total wagon production per year was around 6,000, so for every five Derby-built wagons there would be one built at Bromsgrove. I will hazard a guess that Bromsgrove's production in the 1890s was entirely standard 8-ton wagons, i.e. D299 and perhaps D351. That's what we see in the photo, mostly!

Edited February 14, 2023 by Compound2632

[drduncan]

On 11/02/2023 at 18:47, jamie92208 said:

Interesting about armour plate.  Much of it was produced in Sheffield next to Midland metals. The main big shipyards were at Barrow in Furness, Midland and Then Furness railway,  Tyneside, Midkand the NER, Portsmouth, Midland thevprobably LSWR, The Clyde, Midland then probably GSWR, and London. Thus the Midland would probably get most of the traffic.  

 

Jamie

You can also add Devonport and Chatham dockyards to the list of shipbuilding locations using armour plate. Devonport built numerous pre dreadnoughts, dreadnoughts and the odd battlecrusier up to WW1. Chatham built more cruisers and smaller ships which still needed armour plate but not in the amounts used in a dreadnought. So that means armour plate  wagons (and large naval guns) on the GWR and their smaller brethren  on the SECR.

Duncan

Edited February 14, 2023 by drduncan

[jamie92208]

That armour plate may well have been for HMS Princess Royal  a battlecruiser that fought at and survived Jutland.

 

Jamie

[Schooner]

Re Devonport. Immediate thoughts leap to tunnel gauges. Was plate definitely brought to the fit-out berths by rail?

[drduncan]

1 minute ago, Schooner said:

Re Devonport. Immediate thoughts leap to tunnel gauges. Was plate definitely brought to the fit-out berths by rail?

Devonport had a very extensive internal railway network covering the ‘steam’ dockyard (Keyham/north yard) with its quadrangle factory and the dockyard extension (the area around 5 basin) which included a massive 100 ton crane that was used for lifting barbettes and heavy guns on/off. (and no tunnel access). There was a tunnel to get the line into the Morice yard and possibly the south yard (but the building slips in the south yard were from the pre steam era - and so much smaller than those in the north yard). The tunnel into the old yards was smal and did restrict the size of loads/wagons but I don’t recall building and fitting out being done in the old 18th century areas. 
D

 

[jamie92208]

There were slso quite a few dreadnoughts built at Portsmouth.  Often the first in class and one was built on the Thames near the Isle of Dogs.  However I would think that the plate trolleys would mainly have been provided by the originating railway company.  Certainly the  Midland.  I'll have to dig a different  book out to find out where else produced it.  I have a feeling that one of the big Glasgow steelworks produced it.

 

Jamie

Edited February 15, 2023 by jamie92208

[jamie92208]

Further to the above, I had to wander over to the shed to feed the chickens so sought out the book I needed whilst en route.  Pre WW1 there were 5 armour plate producers.  3 in Sheffield, then Beardmore's at Parkhead in Glasgow and Armstrong Whitworth at Openshaw in Manchester.  The orders were managed by the Admiralty who then supplied the armour to the shipyards.  Thus any works could be found supplying any shipyard.  It seems that 12' width was the largest size. There were also large semi circular sheeys for the fronts of gun turrets.  Vickers were one of the three main producers at Sheffield along with John Browns and one other.  

 

The source for all this us a fascinating book called, The 'Battleship Builders' by Johnston and Buxton.  ISBN 978-1-84832-093-2

 

I'm not sure which railway company served Parkhead or Openshaw but the Midland and possibly the GC would get the majority of the traffic which came from Sheffield.

 

Jamie

[MarcD]

Parkhead Forge had connections to the Cally and the North British. its now a shopping centre. Openshaw was linked to the GCR and the GCR/MR Joint lines. it was near Ashbury Carrage and Wagon works, the GCR loco works and Pecock's Loco works.

 

Marc

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, MarcD said:

Parkhead Forge had connections to the Cally and the North British. its now a shopping centre. Openshaw was linked to the GCR and the GCR/MR Joint lines. it was near Ashbury Carrage and Wagon works, the GCR loco works and Pecock's Loco works.

 

I'm wondering whether these two, being in less land-locked locations than Sheffield, may have sent large plates to the shipyards by sea, with either short-haul rail to the docks or by road.

[jamie92208]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'm wondering whether these two, being in less land-locked locations than Sheffield, may have sent large plates to the shipyards by sea, with either short-haul rail to the docks or by road.

Parkhead was owned by Beardmores who built ships at Dalmuir on the Clyde so I suspect that most of their production would go direct to the yard. The Openshaw works were owned by Armstrong Whitworth whose yards were at Elswick on the Tyne.  Again I suspect that most of their production would be used 'in house' especially as Armstrongs were building quite a few dreadnoughts for overseas buyers. One of theirs was the Turkish one that  Churchill ordered to be siezed at gunpoint. That leaves the 3 at Sheffield supplying most of the other yards with the Midland being in pole position to capture most of the traffic.  As I'm now back home I'll read the section on armour production again.  Just as an aside, the very heavy turret armour was classed as being part of the armament contract.

 

It's amazing what highways and byeways we wander down on this thread.

 

Jamie

Edited February 15, 2023 by jamie92208

[corneliuslundie]

I have been thinking that the thread deserves to be renamed, something like "Fascinating things you never knew about goods wagons - and everything else"!

I think at the moment it may well be the most active thread, possibly after HS2 but considerably more useful.

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I have been thinking that the thread deserves to be renamed, something like "Fascinating things you never knew about goods wagons - and everything else"!

 

No, it circles round its theme but never departs from it entirely.

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 88-2015-0194, DY 9839, No.81750 at Leeds Goods station, 11 October 1912.]

 

Replacement planks in a very dark shade of grey?

[Andy Hayter]

Could well be but haven't they done a good job lining up their HMRS transfers?😄

[magmouse]

43 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Replacement planks in a very dark shade of grey?

 

The infamous 'smudge'?

 

The amount of dirt on the lettering is consistent on old planks and new, suggesting the lettering was completely repainted when the planks were replaced.

 

Presumably this is another demo photo of how to pack a wagon with miscellaneous stuff, and would have been covered by a sheet while in transit. Are there any photos of wagons moving in trains stacked this high - other than the hay and straw loads discussed previously? Or was this just a bit of a stunt?

 

Nick.

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, magmouse said:

The infamous 'smudge'?

 

Just to reiterate a well-known fact*, smudge was a post-Great War thing, resulting from the purchase of government surplus battleship grey (see - everything connects!) and used for repainted wagons. (Photo is 1912.)

 

*See Midland Style, p. 139. Midland Style is pretty much revealed truth in this game, though Dow does not quote his sources. On which point, he goes on "the white letters MR, which consisted of a self-cleaning oxalic paint, stood out more prominently than ever." So this is the elusive Midland Style reference to oxalic paint; I had failed to find it and so thought the only reference was in Midland Wagons, p. 51. Note that there, it comes straight after the discussion of smudge, which strongly suggests that Essery was drawing on Midland Style here. But I still remain unconvinced, since we have many instances where the lettering doesn't stand out at all well...

 

3 hours ago, magmouse said:

Presumably this is another demo photo of how to pack a wagon with miscellaneous stuff, and would have been covered by a sheet while in transit. Are there any photos of wagons moving in trains stacked this high - other than the hay and straw loads discussed previously? Or was this just a bit of a stunt?

 

I think this and the similar high-piles mixed loads in the photos of wagon No. 88181 were put together for the benefit of the official photographer, presumably to illustrate loading technique. I think I struggle to find a Midland goods train photo showing such high sheeted loads but there are plenty of LNWR goods train photos that show such loads - even in one-plank wagons - and the stacking method corresponds exactly to the description given by Fred West, the Crewe Goods Agent, in an article about the Crewe Tranship Shed:

[WFPettigrew]

Briefly heading back into the land of armour plate, and so far there has been no clearly steer from the Cumbrian Railways Association regarding any weight limits on the Furness Railway - other than the sensible observation that any armour plate for the Barrow shipyard would, on reaching Barrow, have to cross either the lifting bridge over Buccleugh Dock (on the passenger route to the Ramsden Dock station and to the workers' Shipyard station) or via the original Devonshire Dock bridge over the original entrance to Barrow docks, in order to reach Barrow Island and the shipyard.  So that's two further potentially weak structures that could have had a bearing on this discussion.  (Or they were all built to the same weight limit requirements?)

 

Stephen's document showing the special working from Sheffield to Barrow nails beyond doubt that such movements existed, but if that hadn't come to light, there was evidence that's been stood in plain sight for over 30 years (since it was published in Ken Norman's book on the FR).   I cannot post here for fear of copyright infringement but there is a Sankey collection image of a wagon pile up on Barrow Island, in and amongst the shipyard buildings, taken probably in the late Great War or post Great War period.  It shows a number of wooden wagons in various states of dismemberment, and central to the chaos is what I am told is an MR armour plate wagon.  The description I have been given is that it is a "50 ton armour plate wagon" built 1918.  It looks similar to the drawing posted earlier, but has different bogies and buffers.  Is that a newer diagram?

Oh and Japanese battleships being built in Barrow?  Here' s the Kongo being fitted out on Buccleugh Dock in 1909:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=761308958592862&set=a.542487551249421

 

All the best

 

Neil 

 

[magmouse]

28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Just to reiterate a well-known fact*, smudge was a post-Great War thing, resulting from the purchase of government surplus battleship grey (see - everything connects!) and used for repainted wagons. (Photo is 1912.)

 

*See Midland Style, p. 139. Midland Style is pretty much revealed truth in this game, though Dow does not quote his sources. On which point, he goes on "the white letters MR, which consisted of a self-cleaning oxalic paint, stood out more prominently than ever." So this is the elusive Midland Style reference to oxalic paint; I had failed to find it and so thought the only reference was in Midland Wagons, p. 51. Note that there, it comes straight after the discussion of smudge, which strongly suggests that Essery was drawing on Midland Style here. But I still remain unconvinced, since we have many instances where the lettering doesn't stand out at all well...

 

 

I think this and the similar high-piles mixed loads in the photos of wagon No. 88181 were put together for the benefit of the official photographer, presumably to illustrate loading technique. I think I struggle to find a Midland goods train photo showing such high sheeted loads but there are plenty of LNWR goods train photos that show such loads - even in one-plank wagons - and the stacking method corresponds exactly to the description given by Fred West, the Crewe Goods Agent, in an article about the Crewe Tranship Shed:

 

Thanks for that - especially the link to the loading gauge thread which I had not seen before. Curious that there seem to have been quite different loading strategies between MR and LNWR.

 

And if the paint isn't smudge, then why is the (presumably) new paint on the repaired planks darker than the old? It's the opposite to the theory that the paint darkened with age due to chemical changes caused by pollution, so the new paint must have been darker to start with. Not smudge, just inaccurately mixed...?

 

Nick.

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

39 minutes ago, magmouse said:

Curious that there seem to have been quite different loading strategies between MR and LNWR.

 

My point was that they seemed to be the same - the photos of Midland wagons match West's description.

[billbedford]

7 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

 That leaves the 3 at Sheffield supplying most of the other yards with the Midland being in pole position to capture most of the traffic. 

 

I believe the three Sheffield works were in Attercliffe, which would suggest the Midland did the carriage. Getting loaded armour bogies up to Neepsend would have been quite a performance.