Pick-up/stopping freight trains: how was the remaining wagon load secured after part of it was delivered?

[Chas Levin]

Hello all, I’m reading up about freight train practice in the steam era (pre-grouping and big four) and wondered what happened in the case of an open wagon containing a mixed load destined for more than one station or goods yard on the journey, when part of the load was delivered to a station but the rest of it was to go on to another stop further on the route? I want to model some wagons with part loads and I’m not sure how to do it.

I know there were strict rules about securing loads to prevent shifting and damage and the wagon loads I see in pictures online (both full size prototype and modelled) tend to be enough to fill an open wagon, but if half that load is delivered, would the remaining half-load have to be re-secured in some way, or would the wagon just continue, half-full.

I don’t think that would have happened, because crates and boxes – let alone barrels and casks – would then have an empty half of the wagon to slide about in… so what did they do?

Did staff at the first drop-off have to find suitable materials to secure that part of the load they weren’t taking delivery of and if so, are there any photos of half-full open wagons dealt with in that way that anyone knows of please?

 

Any help gratefully received, Chas

[John Isherwood]

10 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Hello all, I’m reading up about freight train practice in the steam era (pre-grouping and big four) and wondered what happened in the case of an open wagon containing a mixed load destined for more than one station or goods yard on the journey, when part of the load was delivered to a station but the rest of it was to go on to another stop further on the route? I want to model some wagons with part loads and I’m not sure how to do it.

I know there were strict rules about securing loads to prevent shifting and damage and the wagon loads I see in pictures online (both full size prototype and modelled) tend to be enough to fill an open wagon, but if half that load is delivered, would the remaining half-load have to be re-secured in some way, or would the wagon just continue, half-full.

I don’t think that would have happened, because crates and boxes – let alone barrels and casks – would then have an empty half of the wagon to slide about in… so what did they do?

Did staff at the first drop-off have to find suitable materials to secure that part of the load they weren’t taking delivery of and if so, are there any photos of half-full open wagons dealt with in that way that anyone knows of please?

 

Any help gratefully received, Chas

 

I'm open to correction, but I don't think that the scenario to which you refer happened very often - if at all.

 

As I understand it, pick-up freights picked up or dropped off wagons, not part-loads - though the wagons may not have been fully loaded.

 

Smaller items would be loaded in a van, from which they could be dropped off at the appropriate station. This van may well have been a NPCCS van, attached to a local passenger train.

 

CJI.

[Chas Levin]

Hello John, thanks - I had wondered whether that might be the case, because of the difficulties involved in re-securing part-loads.

 

Even if it was very occasional though, I can't help wondering whether it did occasionally happen that two or three items too large for a closed van (perhaps some oil drums and a couple of large but light crates) were delivered at one stop on the journey, leaving other similarly sized items in the wagon for a later stop. 

 

It just seem a little odd to have every open wagon modelled with a full load, or completely empty.

 

Would it be plausible to have some with only a part-load from the point of origin, where it had been fully secured at the start of the journey: perhaps only a few boxes or casks, securely roped to one end of the wagon? I know the railway companies would always try to fill every wagon for economical operation, but presumably they weren't always able to do so?

[stewartingram]

I remember going to a talk by the late Ian Allen, the photographer/doctor. He had a pic taken in Suffolk (can't remember where now), I think it was a J15 or J17? with a single wagon and brake van in tow. The load in that wagon (a van) was a single ladies hat!. Apparently she made one every year for a customer (for Ascot Day I believe) and sent it to her by train. It had to be carried, as BR at that time was a common carrier and couldn't refuse it.

[John Isherwood]

1 minute ago, Chas Levin said:

Hello John, thanks - I had wondered whether that might be the case, because of the difficulties involved in re-securing part-loads.

 

Even if it was very occasional though, I can't help wondering whether it did occasionally happen that two or three items too large for a closed van (perhaps some oil drums and a couple of large but light crates) were delivered at one stop on the journey, leaving other similarly sized items in the wagon for a later stop. 

 

It just seem a little odd to have every open wagon modelled with a full load, or completely empty.

 

Would it be plausible to have some with only a part-load from the point of origin, where it had been fully secured at the start of the journey: perhaps only a few boxes or casks, securely roped to one end of the wagon? I know the railway companies would always try to fill every wagon for economical operation, but presumably they weren't always able to do so?

 

The critical factor would be the time taken to offload a part load - the train would have to stand idle whilst this was done, and there might well not be anyone available to do so immediately. Bear in mind that the consignor or recipient often handled the loading / unloading.

 

Partly loaded wagons were not ideal from the railway's perspective, but were by no means unknown.

 

CJI.

[Sitham Yard]

6 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

 

 

It just seem a little odd to have every open wagon modelled with a full load, or completely empty.

 

Would it be plausible to have some with only a part-load from the point of origin, where it had been fully secured at the start of the journey: perhaps only a few boxes or casks, securely roped to one end of the wagon? I know the railway companies would always try to fill every wagon for economical operation, but presumably they weren't always able to do so?

I expect it would. I don't know about earlier periods but in BR days I understand that any consignment over 1 ton had a wagon to itself although I believe that changed to 2 tons later, possibly late 1950's.

Andrew

[Chas Levin]

8 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

I remember going to a talk by the late Ian Allen, the photographer/doctor. He had a pic taken in Suffolk (can't remember where now), I think it was a J15 or J17? with a single wagon and brake van in tow. The load in that wagon (a van) was a single ladies hat!. Apparently she made one every year for a customer (for Ascot Day I believe) and sent it to her by train. It had to be carried, as BR at that time was a common carrier and couldn't refuse it.

Great story, but that's definitely too lightly loaded for me I think! 👒

 

And would anyone seeing the model believe it was actually an accurate representation of a genuine prototype without the photo to back it up? 🔎

[Chas Levin]

12 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

The critical factor would be the time taken to offload a part load - the train would have to stand idle whilst this was done, and there might well not be anyone available to do so immediately. Bear in mind that the consignor or recipient often handled the loading / unloading.

 

Partly loaded wagons were not ideal from the railway's perspective, but were by no means unknown.

 

CJI.

That's the thing John - the idea that staff would have to re-arrange and re-secure the remaining part-load, including finding suitable rope, chain or whatever was needed to do so, seems dreadfully ineffecient.

 

It must have happened at times though, as they surely couldn't have arranged things so that every wagon load was to be delivered to only one place; yet photos of part-loaded wagons seem hard to find.

 

Actually, photos of any wagons with mixed local freight loads don't seem to be that easy to find as far as I can see so far; not surprising of course, as they'd have been seen as amongst the least exciting or interesting workings at the time I think...

[John Isherwood]

4 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

That's the thing John - the idea that staff would have to re-arrange and re-secure the remaining part-load, including finding suitable rope, chain or whatever was needed to do so, seems dreadfully ineffecient.

 

It must have happened at times though, as they surely couldn't have arranged things so that every wagon load was to be delivered to only one place; yet photos of part-loaded wagons seem hard to find.

 

Actually, photos of any wagons with mixed local freight loads don't seem to be that easy to find as far as I can see so far; not surprising of course, as they'd have been seen as amongst the least exciting or interesting workings at the time I think...

 

I don't understand why you seem to think that all wagons ran fully loaded - they certainly didn't.

 

Dropping off part-loads from wagons, that then continued on their journey still part-loaded was just impracticable.

 

Except for items carried in a van for station delivery, it just didn't happen, to the best of my knowledge.

 

CJI.

[Chas Levin]

17 minutes ago, Sitham Yard said:

I expect it would. I don't know about earlier periods but in BR days I understand that any consignment over 1 ton had a wagon to itself although I believe that changed to 2 tons later, possibly late 1950's.

Andrew

I guess a load might still be split to go to more than one destination though, mightn't it, regardless of its initial weight.

 

If you were a manufacturer of water pumps for instance, you might ship four quarter-ton machines in a wagon, two for a station goods yard in a town ten miles away, one for another stop fifteen miles away and the last for a larger town at the end of the line twenty miles away.

 

What arrangements would be made to secure the remaining two, then the remaining one unit, as the wagon was gradually relieved of its cargoe along the route?

[John Isherwood]

15 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Great story, but that's definitely too lightly loaded for me I think! 👒

 

And would anyone seeing the model believe it was actually an accurate representation of a genuine prototype without the photo to back it up? 🔎

 

You clearly haven't looked at enough photos - there are plenty of single wagon plus brakevan trains.

 

CJI.

[C126]

My understanding, for what it is worth, is exactly that the four 1/4-Ton pumps would go in three different wagons, each for the different destinations, to be unloaded 'at leisure' by the consignee in the local Goods Yard.  But I could be wrong; my knowledge is negligible compared to some on this web-site.

[Chas Levin]

1 minute ago, cctransuk said:

 

I don't understand why you seem to think that all wagons ran fully loaded - they certainly didn't.

 

Dropping off part-loads from wagons, that then continued on their journey still part-loaded was just impracticable.

 

Except for items carried in a van for station delivery, it just didn't happen, to the best of my knowledge.

 

CJI.

Thanks John; I guess if I have everything sensibly packed and/or secured, whether fully or part-loaded, then it can be taken to have been loaded and secured that way at the start of its journey and look reasonably plausible.

[RichardT]

This is the thing: the “steam-era” railway, especially pre-WW2, was inefficient by modern standards of asset utilisation. Combine that with the burden of having to be a common carrier as mentioned above (which the railways post-1918 lobbied long and hard to be released from) and the relative cheapness of labour before 1939, and you get a lot of practices that seem incredibly wasteful to our eyes, skewed as we are by instant availability of information, modern accountancy practices, and the modern logistics obsession with unitisation and avoiding double-handling of goods

 

Beeching is a hate figure to many, but nonetheless there were genuinely a lot of inefficiencies just waiting to be cut out of the railway. (The problem with many of Beeching’s remedies was more the narrowness of his focus, largely due to his political masters.)

 

Richard

Edited January 30, 2023 by RichardT
Clarity

[Chas Levin]

1 minute ago, C126 said:

My understanding, for what it is worth, is exactly that the four 1/4-Ton pumps would go in three different wagons, each for the different destinations, to be unloaded 'at leisure' by the consignee in the local Goods Yard.  But I could be wrong; my knowledge is negligible compared to some on this web-site.

Oh - right, that makes much more sense, doesn't it: thank you, I should have realised that.

[John Isherwood]

1 minute ago, C126 said:

My understanding, for what it is worth, is exactly that the four 1/4-Ton pumps would go in three different wagons, each for the different destinations, to be unloaded 'at leisure' by the consignee in the local Goods Yard.  But I could be wrong; my knowledge is negligible compared to some on this web-site.

 

Spot-on - come on, Chas - forget this idea that wagons were loaded to more than one destination; it was wholly impracticable!

 

CJI.

[C126]

4 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

I should have realised that.

 

Not at all; it is far better to ask.  And please forgive me if my answer sounded aggressive.  I did not mean it so.

Edited January 30, 2023 by C126
Remove "too".

[Chas Levin]

3 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

You clearly haven't looked at enough photos - there are plenty of single wagon plus brakevan trains.

 

CJI.

I'm sure you're right that I haven't looked at enough photos and I shall of course look at lots more.

 

One issue I've found is that a lot of freight photos were - understandably - taken from ground or platform level so that wagon contents are not always very visible. the ocasional shots taken from higher vantage points, such as bridges, offer more information about what was carried and how it was secured, but those shots seem much less common.

[Chas Levin]

1 minute ago, cctransuk said:

 

Spot-on - come on, Chas - forget this idea that wagons were loaded to more than one destination; it was wholly impracticable!

 

CJI.

Yes, I see that must be the case. 

 

That is exactly why it bothered me in the first place though - it sounded so inefficient. 

 

Perhaps I'm too mired in current thinking, when maximising profits leads to every inch of a vehicle being used to its fullest and the idea of apportioning a separate wagon to each of those four 1/4 ton pumps would probably be rejected. I know that where I work, containers and trucks are invariably loaded to combine consignments, but the logistics of railways are different: our deliveries ocm to our warehouse doors, rather than a nearby station...

[Chas Levin]

5 minutes ago, C126 said:

 

Not at all; it is far better to ask.  And please forgive me if my answer sounded too aggressive.  I did not mean it so.

Not at all - your answer sounded absolutely fine! 😀

 

It can be difficult judging tone sometimes in emails and forum posts but I hadn't thought there was anything amiss. Thank you for checking on that though...

[C126]

I think the two things to bear in mind are:

 

(1) the wagon was the basic 'unit' to the railway, so how full it was from the sender mattered little;

 

(2) in practical terms, as @cctransuk indicates, to part-unload a wagon, the recipient would have to be at the Goods Station to meet the train, and unload the wagon as the train waited.

 

I think we can agree (2) is most unlikely, although in modern times, I understand it was/is done with military loads to insecure sidings.

[Chas Levin]

11 minutes ago, RichardT said:

This is the thing: the “steam-era” railway, especially pre-WW2, was inefficient by modern standards of asset utilisation. Combine that with the burden of having to be a common carrier as mentioned above (which the railways post-1918 lobbied long and hard to be released from) and the relative cheapness of labour before 1939, and you get a lot of practices that seem incredibly wasteful to our eyes, skewed as we are by instant availability of information and modern accountancy practices.

 

Beeching is a hate figure to many, but nonetheless there were a lot of inefficiencies just waiting to be cut out of the railway.  The problem with many of Beeching’s remedies was the narrowness of his focus.

 

Richard

Hello Richard, exactly where my thoughts had started to go when in replying to John a moment ago where I wrote:

3 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Perhaps I'm too mired in current thinking, when maximising profits leads to every inch of a vehicle being used to its fullest and the idea of apportioning a separate wagon to each of those four 1/4 ton pumps would probably be rejected. I know that where I work, containers and trucks are invariably loaded to combine consignments, but the logistics of railways are different: our deliveries ocm to our warehouse doors, rather than a nearby station...

Can you imagine suggesting these days to a haulage company with 1 ton capacity trucks that they send three to deliver your four water pumps to three different addresses?

Or rather, can you imagine how much higher your shipping bill would be? Not quite three times as much I don't suppose (there are limits, even these days) but not far off, I'm sure...

 

Beeching: we're certainly widening the discussion but yes, from what I understand of what he found and what he did in reposnse, there were undoubtedly very understandable reasons why change was needed, but whether he went the right way about it is a difficult question.

Sometimes, when I go to clear out a cupboard or a drawer, I find a little more stuff that could be disposed of than I'd expected and then I really get the bit between my teeth, the cleansing feeling of 'throwing away' takes over and I have to stop myself getting rid of half the house.

I wonder whether Beeching had something of the same affect him; I think he would have been actively encouraged by the management at the time and I believe I'm right in remembering that he was hugely taken aback at the negative reaction to his work. Perhaps he simply got carried away and lost sight of the wood for the trees...🤔

[Wheatley]

Not all (not even most ?) consignments were unloaded  by railway staff unless they were then to be delivered to the door by the  railway's carrier (lorry/horse and cart depending on era), or  warehoused (in the goods  shed) by the railway to be collected. It was cheaper to pay 'mileage only' and unload it yourself, hence the term 'mileage siding' where wagons  were left to be unloaded by the consignee. 

 

Small consignments would go in the 'road van' mentioned by CCtransuk, typically a 12t van unloaded by the platform staff at each stop and not to be confused with a 'road motor'. This  was in addition to the 'parcels by passenger train' service  which was charged at a premium. 

 

Inefficiencies were rife, especially towards the end. I have an account somewhere of a goods working along one of the Edinburgh area branches to some minor goods yard; the consignment was a  single cask being delivered to a  distillery. It had been sent 'for delivery' so a  road motor followed the train from it's starting point to  where it was unloaded so it could then be loaded onto the lorry for final delivery to the customer. There is also an account by Norris Forrest in an old edition of 'Byelines' describing a  trip on the branch goods from Newton Stewart to Whithorn in 1960. At each station (goods only by then) small consignments  were left "for the road motor" which followed the train to pick them up and deliver them.   

[Chas Levin]

5 minutes ago, C126 said:

I think the two things to bear in mind are:

 

(1) the wagon was the basic 'unit' to the railway, so how full it was from the sender mattered little;

 

(2) in practical terms, as @cctransuk indicates, to part-unload a wagon, the recipient would have to be at the Goods Station to meet the train, and unload the wagon as the train waited.

 

I think we can agree (2) is most unlikely, although in modern times, I understand it was/is done with military loads to insecure sidings.

Yes, I think you - and John - are spot on and I think the key point I've missed is your first one, that with the wagon as the basic railway 'unit' it mattered little how full it was.

 

Ok, so, if I'm going to have some wagons considerably less than full, I need to find out more about how part-loaded wagons had their contents secured.

 

One thing I've come across recently is that many of the photos we see of uncovered open wagons are a little misleading, as in fact, a large proportion of open wagons were sheeted over with tarpaulins in transit, with the coverings generally only being removed in the yard, for loading and unloading or for illustrating how to load particular types of cargo... which is of course where a large proportion of the photos we see were taken.

 

While I do intend modelling sheeted wagons too, I want to have a reasonable number with visible mixed loads (for local delivery), so some more research is clearly needed.

 

I recently picked up Bob Essery's excellent and very informative "Freight Train operation for Railway Modellers" but it didn't have as much about loading and securing as I tohught it might, being more concerned with the bigger picture. Full of fascinating info on freight operations generally though...

[Chas Levin]

3 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

Not all (not even most ?) consignments were unloaded  by railway staff unless they were then to be delivered to the door by the  railway's carrier (lorry/horse and cart depending on era), or  warehoused (in the goods  shed) by the railway to be collected. It was cheaper to pay 'mileage only' and unload it yourself, hence the term 'mileage siding' where wagons  were left to be unloaded by the consignee. 

 

Small consignments would go in the 'road van' mentioned by CCtransuk, typically a 12t van unloaded by the platform staff at each stop and not to be confused with a 'road motor'. This  was in addition to the 'parcels by passenger train' service  which was charged at a premium. 

 

Inefficiencies were rife, especially towards the end. I have an account somewhere of a goods working along one of the Edinburgh area branches to some minor goods yard; the consignment was a  single cask being delivered to a  distillery. It had been sent 'for delivery' so a  road motor followed the train from it's starting point to  where it was unloaded so it could then be loaded onto the lorry for final delivery to the customer. There is also an account by Norris Forrest in an old edition of 'Byelines' describing a  trip on the branch goods from Newton Stewart to Whithorn in 1960. At each station (goods only by then) small consignments  were left "for the road motor" which followed the train to pick them up and deliver them.   

Interesting, thank you!

 

I'd not come across the term 'mileage siding' before and I wouldn't have known what it meant, as it's not obvious from the wording, without some wider knowledge.

 

It certainly was a time of service prioritised over profit, wasn't it? A way of working that has changed, as so much has changed in the way we do these things, and for many complex reasons.