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

[Compound2632]

37 minutes ago, magmouse said:

A bit of further peering at photos with an overlaid grid has brought me to the conclusion that the letters need to be more like 2.5mm in 7mm scale.

 

Ah, that's not so bad. 4 pt rather than 3 pt at 4 mm scale. I was wondering about hot punches too. Or just writing the numbers on with a Rotring pen.

[Compound2632]

Though, @Northroader, I have and would use the wooden block method for a sheeted wagon, where close fit to the wagon's inside dimensions isn't important.

[Compound2632]

Here's a thing. Traffic Committee minutes, Dec 14/75

20122    Average earnings of Trucks

                              Read the following return:-            

Average earning per Midland Truck for the half years ending June 1867, 68, 74. & 75.

Average earning per Truck of other Companies for half year ending June 1875

There's no explanation as to why this information was wanted at this time; I suppose someone had been getting concerned about value for money. Note that these figures exclude mineral traffic and wagons employed in mineral traffic.   

 

The cost of a new ordinary Midland goods wagon was around £62. A few years later, Clayton was calculating maintenance as a charge on revenue at 6.5%. At receipts of £50 per annum per truck, that's £3 5s, or £46 15 s net revenue; in other words a wagon had paid for itself within 16 months. Of course this neglects all the other charges to revenue associated with working the goods traffic!

Edited February 22, 2023 by Compound2632

[kitpw]

In the context of incised lettering on wagon sole bars, I remembered yesterdsy that we had looked at the question before and RMweb's search engine turned up something I posted in this thread in 2020:

 

Posted November 23, 2020

The "GWR" lettering on the timber sole bar of the wagon upended in the photo above is, according to Atkins etc, "carved out".  I doubt it:  the photo appears to show quite a wide letter form with a very shallow flat base - difficult to achieve by carving which tends to produce a V form of trench.  I think it more likely that the letters were "branded", a common practice for marking wood then and still used today.  Maybe something could be done by etching stainless steel to produce a branding iron for models... just a thought: probably not so good with plasticard but wooden sole bars?

 

The upended wagon picture is referenced as https://content-eu.invisioncic.com/y320084/monthly_2020_11/1851083306_Stourbridgepile-up.jpg.f30a869f8137809918b5bffb44b5313f.jpg, posted by @compound2632 - perhaps Stephen could find again as it went the way of others pre the great picture wipe out.

 

I've posted this recollection here as the picture obviously showed the sole bar lettering pretty clearly and may be helpful.  I obviousy thought that punches might be a better route as I didn't pursue the etched idea.

 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, kitpw said:

The upended wagon picture is referenced as https://content-eu.invisioncic.com/y320084/monthly_2020_11/1851083306_Stourbridgepile-up.jpg.f30a869f8137809918b5bffb44b5313f.jpg, posted by @compound2632 - perhaps Stephen could find again as it went the way of others pre the great picture wipe out.

 

If it was posted in this topic i should have reinstated it. Anyway:

 

 

Chiseled or branded?

[Schooner]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

Chiseled

 

90% sure. Distinct and consistent shading visible, which you'd get from carved letters but not branded.

[Annie]

Busted up wagon photos, - so useful for discovering those finer details.

 

[Andy Hayter]

As a non-expert that looks very much as if carved with a half round chisel.

[magmouse]

Thanks, Kit, for reminding me about this picture - I had a copy stashed away, but had forgotten it shows the carved lettering so clearly (much more so than the other pictures I have been looking at). Thanks also, Stephen, for re-posting.

 

It was a good opportunity to re-run my maths on the lettering height, based on this clearer picture, so in the spirit of 'show your working', here it is:

 

 

The red squares are 1 foot, and the green are 1 inch. This is scaled based on the following assumptions, working from the bottom of the solebar upwards:

 

11" solebar

on top of which, a 3" floor

the top face of which is level with the top of the curb rail,

on top of which, an 11" plank forming the wagon side

 

Total = 25"

 

The extreme enlargement of the photo means the edges are a bit blurry, so there is an element of judgement in scaling and placing the photo on the grid, but it is reasonably accurate.

 

On this basis, the letters are 4" high, which is 2.34mm in 7mm scale, or 1.33 in 4mm scale - just slightly smaller than my previous estimate.

 

In related news, I have been trying different methods for carving these letters in a polystyrene solebar. My hand-done version, posted earlier, gave a bee-shaped groove, and - as has been commented on - it should be a groove with a flat bottom. I tried using my mini-drill in a vertical stand as an impromptu milling machine, with a bit made from a sewing pin. I shaped the end of the pin on an oilstone to flatten the extreme point, and take one side off, leaving a D-shape cross section at the tip. However, this gave too little control - there is so much flex and slop in the set-up (relative to the tiny size of everything) that the tip wanders about too much, especially when trying to do curves.

 

The punches I have ordered on eBay may be the answer, though I suspect the results from those will be too crude. The sewing pin I shaped, however, seems to work quite well as a hand tool, gripped in a pin-vice, and gives the right profile groove, so that may be the best way forward.

 

Nick.

[magmouse]

14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Here's a thing. Traffic Committee minutes, Dec 14/75

20122    Average earnings of Trucks

                              Read the following return:-            

Average earning per Midland Truck for the half years ending June 1867, 68, 74. & 75.

Average earning per Truck of other Companies for half year ending June 1875

There's no explanation as to why this information was wanted at this time; I suppose someone had been getting concerned about value for money. Note that these figures exclude mineral traffic and wagons employed in mineral traffic.   

 

The cost of a new ordinary Midland goods wagon was around £62. A few years later, Clayton was calculating maintenance as a charge on revenue at 6.5%. At receipts of £50 per annum per truck, that's £3 5s, or £46 15 s net revenue; in other words a wagon had paid for itself within 16 months. Of course this neglects all the other charges to revenue associated with working the goods traffic!

 

Which begs the question - why were the receipts per wagon on the GWR so much lower? Too many wagons sitting around idle (possibly due to the inefficiencies of the mixed standard and broad gauge systems)? Different traffic with less earning potential?

 

Nick.

 

[jamie92208]

Good afternoon, my goodcfriend Derek Rayner, technical editor of Old Glory, has got back to me about deliveries from Kitsons and Fowlers works.  It doesn't fully answer the question but I thought that the info might be of interest.

 

I can offer some info in this respect - but not much - in that I know from Green’s records that some of their steam tram locos were delivered locally by road, loaded on a trailer using traction engines used by local haulage contractors.

However, I don’t know anything at all about Kitson’s in that respect.

Fowler’s had a subsidiary ‘works’ in Magdeburg and many ploughing engines and other products went there, some in a knock-down format for reassembly over there, prior to going to their customers further east - Hungary etc.  The onward journey I understand would have been by rail  - because of the difference in loading gauges.

There was a huge gantry crane at Hunslet East and depending on where they were eventually destined for, very many engines for European customers went down South Accommodation Road and were loaded onto railway wagons there - thus being then taken by rail to Neville Hill and on to Hull by the NER for the ferry across the water - probably too Hamburg.   I don’t know whether they were towed along SA Road or steamed.   There’s a photo in a book somewhere of that big crane with an engine close to it - but at the moment, I can’t find it otherwise I’d scan it and send it to you.

One would therefore assume that other Fowler products would have been loaded at Hunslet Lane for MR etc destinations...

I hope this helps.

 

if he sends me any more info I will post it.

 

Jamie
 

[Compound2632]

Ah now, mention of traction engines leads into the great implement or traction wagon saga. In the early days, an implement wagon was the sort of low floored wagon of, typically, 10 tons capacity, exemplified by diagram D333, fig. 156 on p. 54 of Midland Wagons vol. 2. In the 31 December 1894 listing of goods stock, such wagons are implement wagons but by the September 1898 diagram sheet they have become traction wagons, the name implement wagon being transferred to higher-capacity low-loading wagons, such as diagrams D313 and D314.

 

Traction wagon, née implement wagon (sometimes agricultural or agricultural implement wagon):

 

 

Implement wagon, née wagon for the conveyance of traction engines:

 

 

[Crops from scan of Diagrams of various Trucks of special construction, c. 1906, MRSC 12300.]

 

This does raise the question of what an agricultural implement is...

 

The earliest mention of such wagons I have yet found is Locomotive Committee minute 3467 of October 1859, ordering the building of 20 implement wagons in place of ordinary wagons broken up.

 

Kirtley's monthly reports show a dozen "machine trucks" built between December 1868 and April 1867, all but one as renewals. What form they took or what their capacity was is as yet a mystery.

 

We start to get on more secure ground in April 1872, when the Traffic Committee requested the Locomotive Committee to build six trucks for the conveyance of traction engines, costing £350 each - a substantial price for a wagon. Financial approval was given for these in May, as additions to stock. Assuming they were built in the second half of 1872, they probably took numbers somewhere in the range 22917-24717. (A number of D333 wagons are recorded with numbers in this range in the 1913 special wagon list, so it is possible they were built as renewals of these 1872 wagons.)

 

By early 1874, the Traffic Committee was pressing for more wagons "suitable for carrying traction engines, furniture vans, &c." Twenty were approved as additions to stock in February but it was not until 17 August 1874 that a drawing was entered in the C&W Drawing Register, Drg. 64 "Wagon for carrying Agricultural Engines" [MRSC 88-D0076]. In September, Clayton reported to the Carriage & Wagon Committee that "in consequence of press of work in our own shops" these should be put out to tender. On 6 October, the tender of Mr J.M. Bennett was accepted at £50 10s each, with delivery within seven weeks of order. Chris Sambrook's British Carriage & Wagon Builders & Repairers 1830-2018 has a very brief entry for this firm, based in Hyde Road, Ardwick, Manchester; in the 1890s principally a sawmill, with interests in the slate trade. No other wagons built by the firm appear to be known.

 

A diagram of these wagons appears on the 1889 diagram sheet:

 

 

[Crop from scan of Diagrams of various Trucks of special construction, 1889, MRSC 28524-009]

 

The number 27488 is in the right range for an addition to stock in the second half of 1874. A photograph of this very wagon is reproduced as plate 23 in Midland Wagons Vol. 1. It has the early style of Clayton brake gear, with wooden blocks and a long lever, but a pair of vee-hangers, either side of the extra-wide solebar. There is also a drawing by G.K. Fox (fig. 21), based in Drg. 64, in which it is shown that the buffers are only 3' 2" above rail level - below the standard 3' 4" of the time. Bennett's semi-circular builder's plate is prominent on the solebar.

 

The diagram does not appear on the 1898 sheet, so these wagons must have all been replaced by then; numbers 27488-92 appear in the 1913 list, certainly renewals by later D333 construction.

 

In August-September 1876 there is a series of minutes referring to ten iron bodied wagons of 20 tons capacity being altered "so as to admit them being available for the larger class of Agricultural Implements and Engines &c.", at a cost of £285 10s each. These might be the machine trucks of 1868/9. But there is nothing answering this description on the 1889 diagram sheet, or in the 1894 listing of stock, unless they are the vehicles variously described as boiler trucks, dating from 1861 according to S.W. Johnson's 1898 Presidential Address to I.Mech.E. (I'll return to these once I've got my head around boiler trucks in general.)

 

In April 1878 the Traffic Committee was pondering "the desirability of having Wagons suitable for the conveyance of agricultural Implements of the same class as those provided by other Companies" but postponed the question pending a report on the vehicles the company already possessed. In June, "The General Manager reported that owing to the larger class of Agricultural Machines, Armour Plates, and heavy Castings now used, a different class of Wagon was required for their conveyance, and that for the want of these the Company had to borrow or see the traffic go past them." A 15-ton wagon was proposed and approval for 20 as additions to stock was given in September 1878. These were built to Drg. 378 of 24 August 1878, "15 ton Wagon to Carry Agricultural Machinery", as lot 20 in the new Litchurch Lane works:

 

 

[Crop from scan of Diagrams of various Trucks of special construction, 1889, MRSC 28524-009]

 

No. 30554 was photographed, Midland Wagons plate 24. All 20 wagons were recorded in the 1894 listing and they appear on the 1898, c. 1902, and c. 1906 diagram sheets. Two survived to appear on the 1913 special wagon list with code FM, Nos. 30554 and 30564. (This suggests they may have been numbered 30554-73, consistent with additions to stock in the second half of 1879.) Nine were sold off to second-hand wagon dealers between 1909 and 1915, eighteen having been renewed as ten 18-ton traction engine or implement wagons of lot 581, D314, in 1904 (which took different numbers).

 

No sooner had these wagons taken the road than there was a vigorous complaint from the Traffic Committee "that the wagons ordered for the conveyance of agricultural Implements had not been constructed according to the required plan, and that they were unsuitable for the purpose owing to their being too long to work into the Agricultural Implement Manufactories." (Although their 14 ft wheelbase surely cannot have been too long for the Hunslet turntable, giving access to Fowler's works.) There was a demand for 20 trucks "of the description originally ordered".

 

By January Clayton had a plan and estimate, which the Carriage & Wagon Committee forwarded to the Traffic Committee "calling attention to the buffers being three inches below the standard height which this committee considers very undesirable". The Traffic Committee noted this and instructed the Carriage & Wagon Committee to deal with the buffers as they saw fit, taking care not to alter the height of the platform. The outcome was lot 43 of 5 May 1880 for 20 wagons to Drg. 450 "Implement Wagon" [MRSC 88-D0638]:

 

 

[Crop from scan of Diagrams of various Trucks of special construction, 1889, MRSC 28524-009]

 

It seems reasonably certain that they were numbered 31562-81, which would make them additions to stock in the first half of 1881.

 

The official photo of No. 31562 appears as plate 308 in Midland Wagons Vol. 2. This was probably taken later in the 1880s; the wooden brake blocks are well worn! The brakegear is very unusual for the early 1880s, having the quadrant pin-rack of Kirtley-era wagons. Comparison with the photo of the Drg. 64 wagon of 1874, No. 27488, it can be seen that the buffer beam is deeper and the self-contained buffers mounted higher, at the expense of a steeper ramp down to the main part of the platform. 

 

These wagons appear on the diagram sheets up to the c. 1902 edition but were extinct by the c. 1906 edition. Their numbers do appear in the 1913 special wagon list, suggesting that they had been renewed by the last lot of D333, lot 422 of 12 January 1897. (This would imply that this lot was not complete until 1902, which is, I think, consistent with what is known of the time taken to complete other lots.)

 

Further construction of implement wagons was as renewals, so there is no mention in the minutes. A new drawing, Drg. 708, was listed in the register with date 26 September 1887 [MRSC 88-D0274] and 90 were built beginning with lot 190 of 1 October 1887. These don't appear on the 1889 diagram sheet but on the 1898 and c. 1902 sheets their diagram is cunningly doubled up with that of the lot 43 wagons:

 

 

[Crop from scan of Diagrams of various Trucks of special construction, c. 1902, MRSC 28314.]

 

This new design was 3 ft longer and, as the photo of No. 18534 of lot 190 [Midland Wagons Vol. 2 plate 309] shows, of rather different construction in detail. No. 25575 is a later version, to diagram D730, one of two built to Drg. 3232 as lot 726 of August 1909, but it illustrates the general features:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64618.]

 

To round off part one of this potted history of traction wagons, here's a photo of seven of them, all, I think, the Drg. 708 D333 variety, loaded up with furniture vans, c. 1910, probably:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64616.]

[jamie92208]

A fascinating post Stephen.  I read much of it before breakfast and pondered on it whilst walking over to the dining room.  We have talked much about transport of newly made goods but I suspect that most use of such wagons would be for removals. From my research for Long Preston, farm removals would probably have been good business.  As far as I know, most farmers in the late 19th century  would have been tenants and when they moved they took all machinery and animals with them.  These moves would obviously have been special workings as the animals would need feed etc after a certain number of hours.  Thus I suspect that all the necessary specialised vehicles would be assembled beforehand.  They would also need careful marshalling so that cattle wagons would be in the right place and the machinery trucks in a place where they could be placed against an end loading dock. Long Preston had such a dock but Settle and Hellifield didn't so a lot of planning must have been done.  

 

The other thoughts were ablut what types of machinery would be transported.  Obviously farm wagons and carts but also threshing machines, ploughs, which for steam ploughs were very large, and portable engines that needed horses to pull them.  Another traffic would be plant and machinery for construction contracts.  The stationary engines for the building of Blea Moor tunnel were delivered in pieces to Ingleton then hauled up the valley by horses. I think that there are some photos of such moves in Harold Bowtell's books about reservoir construction.  I remember one photo of several contractors locos loaded onto wagons near Keighley at the end of a contract.  There would also have been such things as pug mills and stone crushers.  All food for thought.  I'll have a look in Bowtell's books when I get home.

 

Jamie

Edited February 24, 2023 by jamie92208

[Compound2632]

Two things I'd missed when writing up yesterday evening:

 

The 15-ton 6-wheelers of lot 20, Drg. 378, had, like the pre-lot Drg. 64 wagons, lower than standard buffer height - 3' 1" above rail, with the floor 3' 4" above rail. These dimensions are repeated on the c. 1902 diagram sheet but on the c. 1906 sheet they are shown as 3' 4" and 3' 7" respectively - larger wheels? With the advent of the 15 and 18 ton implement wagons, D313 and D314, I suppose the extra 3" for large loads had ceased to be sufficiently critical for the low buffer height to be worth tolerating.

 

The "classic" D333 traction wagons, Drg. 708, lot 190 et seq., were the same length over headstocks as the 15-ton wagons, 20' 0", so presumably objections to that length had been overcome.

[kitpw]

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

mention of traction engines leads into the great implement or traction wagon saga

How were traction engines loaded and unloaded ? I've seen pictures of them on rail wagons, but not how they got there, or off again.

 

 

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, kitpw said:

How were traction engines loaded and unloaded ? I've seen pictures of them on rail wagons, but not how they got there, or off again.

 

I suppose at an end loading dock, or driven (hauled) off onto a side platform, if the engine had a tight enough turning circle? 

[jamie92208]

As far as I know an end loading dock.  They don't have tight turning circles.  The only other method would be a large gantry crane as mentioned by Derek Rayner above.

 

Jamie

[kitpw]

49 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

at an end loading dock

....Oops....

 

 

[JustinDean]

15 minutes ago, kitpw said:

....Oops....

 

 

The driver is the best part of this!

 

Jay

[Compound2632]

@kitpw, stout porter sits on the other end of the wagon.

 

Now, A-level physics:

 

Pivot point is axle nearest end loading dock.

 

Weight of D333 traction wagon: 5.75 tons.

Distance of wagon's CoG from pivot point = half of wheelbase = 5.5 ft.

Anticlockwise moment (per sketch) = 31.6 ton-ft.

 

Traction engine; maximum weight 10 tons (capacity of wagon).

I suspect that more weight is on the rear wheels than the front, but for the sake of argument assume it's evenly distributed. Therefore weight on front wheels: 5 tons maximum.

Maximum distance from pivot point is when the engine's front wheels are over the buffers (though I expect the plates or whatever that bridge the gap between headstock and dock distribute the weight between the two; anyway let's assume the worst).

Length over buffers: 22' 10", less wagon wheelbase, 11', and divide by 2 gives distance from pivot point 5.9 ft.

Clockwise moment (per sketch) = 29.5 ton-ft.

 

Anticlockwise moment exceeds clockwise moment by 2.1 ton-ft; hence the wagon will not tip as shown in the sketch.

 

Incidentally, stout porter, say 16 st = 0.1 ton, on headstock at far end contributes anticlockwise moment of 1.6 ton-ft, so would be worth having, especially if the engine is being reversed onto the truck, or driven off front-forwards, so the it's the heavy end that bears down on the end of the wagon.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Compound2632

[billbedford]

Mmmm, who ever drew these diagrams hadn't realised that the traction engine/implement wagons had 2'8" wheels. 

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, billbedford said:

Mmmm, who ever drew these diagrams hadn't realised that the traction engine/implement wagons had 2'8" wheels. 

 

Very true! But the size of the wheels wasn't important from an operational point of view, unlike the length, width, and height of platform above rails. The thing to remember is that the very last group of people the draugtsman of a diagram had in mind was 21st century modellers! (Which is why I have given the Midland Railway Study Centre reference for the Derby C&W drawings, where a copy survives in that collection.)

[magmouse]

20 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Stout porter sits on the other end of the wagon.

 

Now, A-level physics:

 

Pivot point is axle nearest end loading dock.

 

Weight of D333 traction wagon: 5.75 tons.

Distance of wagon's CoG from pivot point = half of wheelbase = 5.5 ft.

Anticlockwise moment (per sketch) = 31.6 ton-ft.

 

Traction engine; maximum weight 10 tons (capacity of wagon).

I suspect that more weight is on the rear wheels than the front, but for the sake of argument assume it's evenly distributed. Therefore weight on front wheels: 5 tons maximum.

Maximum distance from pivot point is when the engine's front wheels are over the buffers (though I expect the plates or whatever that bridge the gap between headstock and dock distribute the weight between the two; anyway let's assume the worst).

Length over buffers: 22' 10", less wagon wheelbase, 11', and divide by 2 gives distance from pivot point 5.9 ft.

Clockwise moment (per sketch) = 29.5 ton-ft.

 

Anticlockwise moment exceeds clockwise moment by 2.1 ton-ft; hence the wagon will not tip as shown in the sketch.

 

Incidentally, stout porter, say 16 st = 0.1 ton, on headstock at far end contributes anticlockwise moment of 1.6 ton-ft, so would be worth having, especially if the engine is being reversed onto the truck, or driven off front-forwards, so the it's the heavy end that bears down on the end of the wagon.

 

A-level physics? Maybe... my (very rusty) degree-level engineering head suggests the need for a 4:1 or5:1 safety factor, to account for the equally stout driver of the traction engine (missing from your calculation) who, depending on the orientation of the truck with respect to the (un)loading dock on arrival, may have to reverse off. The heavy end of the engine, plus  stout driver, could get the clockwise moment up by enough to, er, tip the balance.

 

Seriously, though, it is interesting how close the two figures are. Thinking about loading a tank onto a warwell, the screw-jacks weren't just belt and braces.

 

Nick.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, magmouse said:

A-level physics? Maybe... my (very rusty) degree-level engineering head suggests the need for a 4:1 or5:1 safety factor, to account for the equally stout driver of the traction engine (missing from your calculation) who, depending on the orientation of the truck with respect to the (un)loading dock on arrival, may have to reverse off. The heavy end of the engine, plus  stout driver, could get the clockwise moment up by enough to, er, tip the balance.

 

Which raises the question, what was the weight of a typical traction engine of the 1870s/80s? (Noting that by the late 90s the 15 ton implement wagons of D313, followed by the 18 ton ones of D314, were being found necessary and were originally described as being to carry traction engines.) Moreover, should the weight be dead or in working order? I would imagine most movements would be of dead engines (i.e. the weight is that without water in the boiler and tank) manhandled on and off the trucks?

[kitpw]

https://www.garmendale.co.uk/the-john-fowler-bb1-ploughing-engine-at-speed/

"John Fowler BB1 (Tiger) Ploughing Engine..... When loaded with coal and water, it weighs 21 tons...." (if self-propelled it would need coal and water). It won't go on the 10 ton wagon: even the 18 ton traction engine wagon is under-rated  for the Fowler but the closest axle to the end dock is about as close as it can be, so clearly designed to avoid the incident that gave the driver his moment of horror in my sketch. 

 

It's clearly a limitation on moving these things around the country when most "local" yard cranes would wilt under a 20 ton load and not all yards were provided with end loading docks with appropriate bridging equipment (tip-over flaps). By comparison, a RR Silver Ghost weighs about a ton and a half, not including Lord Largegirth.