RCH 1907 Private Owner Wagons - with added 2024 range.

[WFPettigrew]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Archer / Railtec rivet transfers...

 

Indeed and I do have some Railtec ones but I had styrene to hand and easy to do.

 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

You've P4'd, of course. Did you have to adjust the brakegear

 

Yes it's P4 and yes the brakes needed a bit filing off. I took too much off actually, so might add a shim to build them back up a bit. I did a post about the conversion up thread.

 

[RapidoLinny]

17 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

First port of call was p16 of the Ince Waggons book (these are actually the 1887 RCH drawing of the monkey tail) , and/or Drwg 12 of the set of 1907 drawings as now hosted by the LMS Society.  I have made a crop of the latter for the purpose of explaining this. 

 

 

These two drawings are - on the left, a cross section and - on the right - a longitudinal section.  These show the actual tail was 1" diameter, angled inwards.  So after comparing the longitudinal location of the monkey tail on the prototype photo, I drilled 0.4mm in the centre of the solebar angling the drill somewhat nervewrackingly to towards the outer face, and then inserted some 0.31mm NS wire. 

 

Then I made a pair of rectangles of 10 thou styrene, 1 and a bit mm x 2mm (as the original casting was 6" front to back and 3 5/8" high - annoyingly I have just realised the 6" measurement is just cropped off the bottom of the above drawing). I trimmed one corner off each to make the angled shape, and stuck these either side of the pin, which I then cut to length using the stem on my callipers as a jig for the cutters. 

 

Finally 5A fusewire was wound round a 0.4mm drill that was secured in the vice, with the two free ends nipped up in the pin vice, and twisted until tight.  This was obviously done twice, one for each side. Then lengths of this were bent into a U and inserted into two more holes drilled in the solebar.  At this point I rather inevitably dislodged the nearer piece of styrene, and I one had to be remade, but they'll do I think. 

 

Oh, and I used my GW Rivet Press to gently dome some 10 thou to represent the four bolt heads on the solebar, again positioning them as per the prototype photo.

 

All the bonding here (and indeed attaching the replacement brass door hinge) was done by solvent, but I did add a drop of cyano to the inside edge of both assemblies to give them a bit more anchoring.

 

Two photos finally - sadly the latest generation phones are more keen to introduce slo-mo and other effects rather than having a macro lens, so I have taken from distance and cropped within an inch of their pixels distorting.  Hopefully this makes it all clear.   

 

 

 

All the best

 

Neil 

As the designer of these wagons, I just wanted to say how much seeing this has made me smile. Obviously we have to make some compromises like the bottom-door catch and the door hinge in order to make a commercially-viable model (we can't do a new body tooling for every livery!), but I'm delighted to see people using these wagons to make even more accurate models of an unsung hero of the British railway network.

Thank you for sharing!

[WFPettigrew]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Yes, I've tried this once* but it was a faff - need to find a much simpler way to do 200 off...

 

*Well, twice, for one wagon.

 

Stephen I have mulling this over, overnight, and have a few thoughts... 

 

Firstly, Evergreen EG102 is 0.25 x 1mm strip.  Not quite enough but.. 

A simple jig could be made up with two fatter strips arranged in a right angle.  One strip is cut to act as a guide to a scalpel to create the angle.  The other strip is cut a tad longer, ie 4mm and square.  Slide your strip into the corner against the longer side, and cut square. Rotate round to be up against the short side and cut your angle. And there you have your two side pieces for one monkey tail.  This would be even easier with something like the NWSL Chopper, with stops up against the fence. 

 

Secondly, I have seen some very fine 3D prints of late.  Could the full bracket plus tail plus pin and even possibly chain be printed?  The chain would need an anchoring link to the main casting but that would not need to be big, and would be hidden towards the back of the solebar.  As you say, they are never included on RTR or kits, so this could be a marketable product?  Could @Andy Vincent advise?

 

 

[WFPettigrew]

2 hours ago, RapidoLinny said:

As the designer of these wagons, I just wanted to say how much seeing this has made me smile. Obviously we have to make some compromises like the bottom-door catch and the door hinge in order to make a commercially-viable model (we can't do a new body tooling for every livery!), but I'm delighted to see people using these wagons to make even more accurate models of an unsung hero of the British railway network.

Thank you for sharing!

 

Thank you Linny.  It really is a very good starting point.  None of the changes were challenging.  I did have a deep breath or three before I started hacking off the hinge and its straps for fear that I would ruin the end, but a mix of paring away with a sharp scalpel followed by a medium and fine needle file quickly got the area ready for the Masokits etch. 

 

I am now looking forward to the LNWR vans when they arrive - and any more south/west Yorkshire colliery wagons you may wish to add to this range!

[Nile]

Another exclusive model for a shop has arrived.

For The Hobby Shop, Faversham. Available here .

[Tumut]

Hello All, in relation to service life, as these wagons were of wooden construction with steel framing, I would have thought that they were infinitely repairable, and the later 1923 "standard" components were able to be retrofitted, (unless heavy shunt irrepairably damaged the under frame), and consider the wooden locomotive tenders attached to the Pug 0-4-0sT, they were 19th C wagons converted to tenders in the 1940s & 1950s in BR days.

Whilst I can understand why BR were countless blessed by Nationalisation effectively allowing such short wheelbase wooden wagons to be permanently removed (at long last ! ) from the BR network, and replaced with the ubiquitous 16t steel Mineral wagon, apparently many coal merchants found the 16t Minerals to be too large for their business, and, as they now did not own the wagon, they would also be more liable for a demurrage charge.

 

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Tumut said:

Hello All, in relation to service life, as these wagons were of wooden construction with steel framing, I would have thought that they were infinitely repairable, and the later 1923 "standard" components were able to be retrofitted, (unless heavy shunt irrepairably damaged the under frame), and consider the wooden locomotive tenders attached to the Pug 0-4-0sT, they were 19th C wagons converted to tenders in the 1940s & 1950s in BR days.

 

As far as the timber components are concerned, you have to consider that after the second world war it was increasingly difficult to obtain sufficient quantities of good quality timber, especially large pieces of oak for frame components - e.g. solebars 12" x 5" x 16 ft long. 

 

3 hours ago, Tumut said:

apparently many coal merchants found the 16t Minerals to be too large for their business, and, as they now did not own the wagon, they would also be more liable for a demurrage charge.

 

Roughly speaking, one man could clear an 8-ton wagon in a working day. As to demurrage, it was Hobson's choice. If you're late releasing a wagon not your own, whether the railway company's or the colliery's or factor's, then demurrage; if you leave your own wagon standing in the yard, then siding rent. 

[fulton]

6 hours ago, Nile said:

Another exclusive model for a shop has arrived.

For The Hobby Shop, Faversham. Available here .

I am pleased with my one as well, arrived yesterday, could not resist giving it my normal treatment, EM wheels, three links, repainted the interior and a good weathering, also somehow looked wrong with no tare weight, so added one.

[Jammy2305]

7 hours ago, Nile said:

Another exclusive model for a shop has arrived.

For The Hobby Shop, Faversham. Available here .

 

Any idea of era/time period for these? There's a photo of three at the colliery with a whole mix of pre-grouping wagons (SECR, MR, NB, GN, GE, NE and GC!). The SECR wagons are in the later SECR livery, however, the colliery wagons look a little worse for wear suggesting they've not seen a paint brush for some time... So by extension, I'm wondering if these can be accurately run with earlier SECR liveried wagons? 

 

- James

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Jammy2305 said:

There's a photo of three at the colliery with a whole mix of pre-grouping wagons (SECR, MR, NB, GN, GE, NE and GC!). 

 

No surprise there, post-Great War. The colliery itself opened in 1906. John Arkell, Private Owner Wagons of the South-East (Lighmoor Press, 2016) reproduces the photo in question, p. 12*, and says, p. 77, 'It is probable that the wagons were for internal use only (or over the East Kent [Light Railway]) as the SE&CR and the Southern did not offer carriage rates in PO wagons.' 

 

So, sorry to be the bearer of bad news but not a generally useful wagon.

 

*Pace Arkell, who simply says after 1915, the photo has to be after March 1917, as the Midland wagon has its number painted on the bodyside under the letter M.

Edited July 26 by Compound2632

[Wickham Green too]

8 hours ago, Tumut said:

... apparently many coal merchants found the 16t Minerals to be too large for their business, ...

Was there actually anything stopping said coal merchant from ordering an 8ton load ??!? ..... it might've been inconvenient at the colliery but 'the customer's always right' yer know.

[Andy Hayter]

Were wagons loaded on a weighbridge?  I doubt it.

 

I strongly suspect loading was by eye and experience, and once loaded the wagon was then transported to the weighbridge for the invoice weight.

 

 

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

Were wagons loaded on a weighbridge?  I doubt it.

 

I believe mineral wagons my have been; either that or tubs were weighed between pithead and wagon. Weight was important at every stage from the collier's pay to the customer's delivery. 

 

There was a case of fraud involving a tank wagon, I forget the detail, but weighbridge records were key to exposure.  

[Wickham Green too]

57 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

Were wagons loaded on a weighbridge?  ...

Of course not - the mechanism wouldn't have lasted five minutes.

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Of course not - the mechanism wouldn't have lasted five minutes.

 

Why not, it being designed for the job? Of course the bridge is locked in place as the wagon is moved onto it, the lock being released to make the measurement, just the same as for a road vehicle weighbridge. The loatter were more common, every railway goods yard having one.

 

Midland Railway Study Centre item 29057:
Midland Railway Form No: M.F.36½ 'Return of Traffic Passed over Weighing Machine'. Lists seventeen wagons from Wirksworth to various destinations apparently weighed on the Midland weighbridge at Little Eaton. Date: 23 August 1920. 

Edited July 26 by Compound2632

[Wickham Green too]

Yes "Traffic Passed over Weighing Machine" ....... but that's not the same as dumping ( up to ) sixteen tons onto it from a great height - don't forget that the dynamic load of a locomotive was banned from many/most weighbridges.

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Yes "Traffic Passed over Weighing Machine" ....... but that's not the same as dumping ( up to ) sixteen tons onto it from a great height 

 

Sorry, yes, I misinterpreted what @Andy Hayter said. 

 

7 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

don't forget that the dynamic load of a locomotive was banned from many/most weighbridges.

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of Midland Railway Study Centre item 12808.]

[Andy Hayter]

51 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Yes "Traffic Passed over Weighing Machine" ....... but that's not the same as dumping ( up to ) sixteen tons onto it from a great height - don't forget that the dynamic load of a locomotive was banned from many/most weighbridges.

 

 

Added to which, any bits of coal or dust  missing the target wagon or bouncing out would find itself working its way into the balance mechanism and would invalidate the measurement in no time at all.  

[Wickham Green too]

Here's one I photographed earlier : - 

 

Meldon Quarry : 30/10/76 ....... not to be confused with the place in Surrey.

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As far as the timber components are concerned, you have to consider that after the second world war it was increasingly difficult to obtain sufficient quantities of good quality timber, especially large pieces of oak for frame components - e.g. solebars 12" x 5" x 16 ft long. 

 

 

Roughly speaking, one man could clear an 8-ton wagon in a working day. As to demurrage, it was Hobson's choice. If you're late releasing a wagon not your own, whether the railway company's or the colliery's or factor's, then demurrage; if you leave your own wagon standing in the yard, then siding rent. 

Just to set things straight as these terms do tend to get confused.  

 

Demurrage was not payable (to the railway) for privately owned wagons (although possibly some owners might have raised a charge if a wagon was delayed?).  In the case of any privately owned wagon remaining in the destination location beyond the free period allowed for unloading Siding Rent would be raised on a daily basis.  Siding Rent was of course cheaper than demurrage.

 

So if it was your own wagon, or a colliery's wagon, or a coal factor's wagon, or any privately owned wagon, and it was held beyond the free period to complete unloading Siding Rent would be raised and charged to the trader who was the consignee for that wagon.  But if the wagon was standing on a Private Siding then the railway would not raise Siding Rent.

 

The purpose of the demurrage charge was to encourage traders to empty a wagon as quickly as possible to allow its return to traffic.  In other words it was charge for using/delaying a railway company owned resource, even if it was standing on a Private Siding.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Just to set things straight as these terms do tend to get confused.  

 

Demurrage was not payable (to the railway) for privately owned wagons (although possibly some owners might have raised a charge if a wagon was delayed?).  In the case of any privately owned wagon remaining in the destination location beyond the free period allowed for unloading Siding Rent would be raised on a daily basis.  Siding Rent was of course cheaper than demurrage.

 

So if it was your own wagon, or a colliery's wagon, or a coal factor's wagon, or any privately owned wagon, and it was held beyond the free period to complete unloading Siding Rent would be raised and charged to the trader who was the consignee for that wagon.  But if the wagon was standing on a Private Siding then the railway would not raise Siding Rent.

 

The purpose of the demurrage charge was to encourage traders to empty a wagon as quickly as possible to allow its return to traffic.  In other words it was charge for using/delaying a railway company owned resource, even if it was standing on a Private Siding.

 

Mike, thanks. To what period does your information apply? 

 

It seems to me* that a colliery or factor would have wanted some incentive to get their wagon back promptly. 

 

*That is, applying logic rather than historical knowledge, knowing too well that there is often a gulf between the two.

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Mike, thanks. To what period does your information apply? 

 

It seems to me* that a colliery or factor would have wanted some incentive to get their wagon back promptly. 

 

*That is, applying logic rather than historical knowledge, knowing too well that there is often a gulf between the two.

 

 

The concept applies still today with respect to shipping containers.

 

Containers landed at a port will be subject to demurrage after a (short) period of time and this will generally be payable to the shipping line - who are often the owners of the containers or have them on hire from a third party.   This is equivalent to paying a wagon owner for non-return of the wagon within a fixed time.

 

Detention charges are payable to the port after a generally shorter period of time for taking up space on their land, because the landed container has not been picked up for onward delivery.  This is equivalent to siding rental charges.

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

The concept applies still today with respect to shipping containers.

 

And, as I gather, the term originates with shipping, being originally applied to ship hire, at least as far back as the 17th century. 

 

From an Old French word of root meaning 'delay'.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Mike, thanks. To what period does your information apply? 

 

It seems to me* that a colliery or factor would have wanted some incentive to get their wagon back promptly. 

 

*That is, applying logic rather than historical knowledge, knowing too well that there is often a gulf between the two.

Definitely applicable from the date of official Orders (seemingly by individual Railway Company) implementing the The Rates And Charges Confirmation Act of 1891.  The Midland Railway Order Confirmation Act is dated 5 August 1891, the LNWR Order Confirmation Act was passed. at around the same time, I can't find a date for the GWR Order Confirmation act but I doubt it was little different.

 

The Act contains various references to the application of demurrage and siding charges etc/. The LNWR was taken to court (eventually the High Court) in 1916 ina dispute over raising of charges and the High Court rules in its favour.

 

All of my Station and Goods  accountancy books date from the inter-war period but basically differ very little in detail from what I was taught on a goods terminal working and accountancy course in the late 1960s.  One thing which did change over the years was the 'free (of charges)  period - in 1921 it was four days but by the 1930s had been reduced to day of advice to trader plus 2 working days.

 

Things changed really asa result of reduction of wagonload traffic anda change to block trains working and, even more so, to the ending of wagonload domestic coal traffic (coal merchants invariably held on to wagons under load  for what amounted to 'warehousing' of the coal they contained.  I don't think we ever had need to raise demurrage charges or siding rent at any of the places where I was working in 'ground level' management posts in the 1970s and '80s as we had very little wagonload traffic at any of them that was dealt with in general sidings; the Army were always very quick to attend when we had wagons of military explosives for them to unload and agricultural machinery and bagged sugar beet pulp (our only other regular inwards traffics to other than private sidings) were always cleared very quickly.

 

So I suspect the charging, or rather the need for it, had virtually died out by the early - mid 1980s.

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Definitely applicable from the date of official Orders (seemingly by individual Railway Company) implementing the The Rates And Charges Confirmation Act of 1891.  The Midland Railway Order Confirmation Act is dated 5 August 1891, the LNWR Order Confirmation Act was passed. at around the same time, I can't find a date for the GWR Order Confirmation act but I doubt it was little different.

 

I am aware of the various Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Acts, 1891 and 1892, but confess to not having read every line. These Acts were prefigured in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, which gave the Board of Trade powers to make Provisional Orders which, it was explicitly provided for, were subsequently to be confirmed by these acts.

 

Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1888/25/pdfs/ukpga_18880025_en.pdf

London and North Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, 1891:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/Vict/54-55/221/pdfs/ukla_18910221_en.pdf

Midland Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, 1891:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/Vict/54-55/219/pdfs/ukla_18910219_en.pdf

Great Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, 1891:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/Vict/54-55/222/pdfs/ukla_18910222_en.pdf

etc.

 

I was recently burrowing into these as they give, I think, the first legal sanction to the classification of cattle wagons as small, medium, and large, with statutory internal lengths of 13' 6", 15' 6", and 18' 0". Prior to this, I think this had just been by agreement of the General Managers' Committee at the RCH, in 1872. As far as I can see, this is the only instance where the dimensions of British railway vehicles have been the subject of legislation (unless you count gauge, of course). 

Edited July 27 by Compound2632
making slightly more sense.