Round-ended lwb SDJR goods wagon identification and slate handling on the S&D.

[phil_sutters]

In this photo from 1897 which appears in The Maritime Activities of the S&DR and Somerset and Avon Railways in old photographs, there is a wagon, apparently in S&D livery - light grey with black iron work - which has rounded ends and drop sides. It looks as least as long as the large cattle wagon near it. Has anyone a clearer view of it and/or any details of it - please? I have looked closely and it is fairly clear that it is just one wagon, although the middle is slightly obscured by the ship's mast. I have uploaded two versions - one a wider view which shows the comparison with the cattle wagon. That was scanned on my printer. The other is a clearer view taken with my phone.

I am still curious about the method of loading and unloading livestock at Highbridge, as mentioned in the photo's caption. I have seen references to livestock being loaded at the jetty at Burnham, presumably in the same way that human traffic made its way on and off the Sherbro etc., but at Highbridge the crane tracks ran along the edge of the wharf on a raised bank, making moving cattle tricky. Most photos seem to show the vessels lying well below the top of the wharf, which would again make moving livestock difficult, yet there are other photos also showing cattle wagons parked alongside the crane tracks. I know cattle have been craned, but it doesn't seem a very humane way to transfer the beasts.

Highbridge Wharf tariff charges include one for slate as an import. The timber yard on the Wharf - John Bland's - listed roofing slates as one of its stock materials. I imagine that the slates would be loaded from the ship into a goods wagon, possibly a 3-planker, and shunted round to Bland's. Is there any information that it formed a regular cargo to other points around the S&D or further afield?

 

Edited July 2 by phil_sutters

[Compound2632]

Fascinating. There were a number of S&DJR 8-ton highside wagons of the Midland pattern that had raised ends in LSWR fashion but this is the only the second time I've come across it on a lowside wagon. Is there a hint of a sheet bar - the dark diagonal line on the end?

 

I think there's no doubt it's a S&DJR wagon, since the rectangular number plate can be made out on the solebar, just right of centre, to the left of the ship's mast. As you say, the black ironwork is S&DJR style - as much in the ironwork not painted black (on the solebar, also buffer guides) as in what is painted black. All obviously very fresh out of the paint shop.

 

There were some long lowside wagons, as evidenced by Maggs, Highbridge in its Heyday, plate 73 (also Bixley et al., Southern Wagons Vol. 1 plate 153), showing 2-plank fixed-side wagon No. 689. With its single wooden brake block, non-standard grease axleboxes, and self-contained buffers - suggestive of conversion from dumb buffers - this has an air of being old SDR stock, built or acquired before 1875. Maggs says the photo was taken at Bath Loco, before Stothert & Pitt's Victoria Works was built. Wikipedia tells me that was '1890s'. The SDR's reported wagon stock increased by 75 open wagons in the half-year ending 31 December 1874, from 686 to 761, as part of the general increase in the company's rolling stock around the time, triggered by the opening of the Bath Extension, so we can probably suppose No. 689 to have been acquired at that time - though (from a comment of S.W. Johnson's in a report to the Joint Committee in 1885) possibly second-hand.

 

Bixley et al., Southern Wagons Vol. 1 plate 154, an enlargement from a well-known photo of the rail wagon No. 1242, taken c. 1904, shows a 3-plank lowside wagon with raised end, LSWR-style, but with fixed sides and a central door, rather than drop-sides. It is No. 681, but clearly does not date from 1873/4, rather it will have been built at Highbridge as a renewal of a wagon built then - so perhaps early/mid-1890s, on a 20-year book lifetime (per Johnson's reports to the Joint Committee in 1885 and 1888, wagons being renewed at the rate of 50 per year, which had been 80 per year in 1885-88, to speed up the elimination of old SDR stock). In the full photo of No. 1242, Southern Wagons Vol. 1 plate 166, No. 681 does look to be longer than the standard 8-ton opens either side of it. 

 

The mystery wagon in the photo is clearly similar to No. 681, though with drop sides. One can't see the buffers or running gear of No. 681 but this wagon has ordinary tapered buffer guides, indicating the usual leaf buffing spring, while the hinges to the drop-sides and end knee look as if they could well be the standard Midland pattern. So I suspect it is a similar 1890s renewal of a long lowside wagon of 1873/4 - in fact it might well be brand new at the 1897 date of the photo. With renewals, the default was like-for-like, so an old long lowside wagon would be replaced by a new long lowside wagon - anything else would probably require additional capital expenditure and hence be authorised by a Joint Committee minute, as in the case of 40 open wagons renewed as covered goods wagons in 1892-93.

 

I'm rather excited by the cattle wagons, though, which are the S&DJR variant of the Midland large cattle wagon, though the examples of this type that came to the LSWR and hence the Southern were built 1903-12. The visible number might be 436, which fits with the block 407 - 456 stated to be cattle wagons in Russ Garner's Register, on the basis of private correspondence with Mike King, but with a note against Nos. 436 and 437 referencing this very photograph. Garner gives them a date of c. 1885 but these can be identified at the batch of 50 ordered as additions to stock ordered from Messrs. Stableford in November 1882 and added to stock in the six moths ending 31 October 1883. So this photo usefully confirms:

1. that these were large cattle wagons;
2. that the vertical stripes indicating the position of the partition for wagons charged as small and medium were in use in 1897, other photos showing these dating from c. 1904 or later, I think (partitions were fitted to 103 large and medium cattle trucks in 1893);
3. and that therefore the stock of 115 cattle wagons in 1893 was made up of 12 small, no more than 53 medium, and at least 50 large cattle wagons. 

I don't know of any photo showing a S&DJR small or medium cattle wagon.

[magmouse]

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Is there a hint of a sheet bar - the dark diagonal line on the end?

 

I think that is a bit of the rigging of the ship in the foreground.

[Compound2632]

17 minutes ago, magmouse said:

I think that is a bit of the rigging of the ship in the foreground.

 

On a second look, you're quite right. The LSWR was starting to use the Williams patent sheet supporter around 1897 but its first use on S&DJR wagons was in 1903 when the Joint Committee authorised the expenditure on fitting it to 50 wagons, with a further 50 in 1906 - in the latter case it is explicitly stated that the material was being bought from the LSWR. I should have remembered this in the first place!

[Compound2632]

Re. the Stableford cattle wagons, they were definitely the large size. Officers minute 1803 of 10 October 1882 reads:

 

"The necessity for increasing the wagon stock was considered, and it was agreed to recommend that 50 seventeen-feet six-inch cattle trucks be provided in lieu of the present cattle wagons, which are unsuitable for the traffic, and that 50 open eight-ton wagons be also ordered, the present cattle trucks, 49 in number, to be converted into box wagons at the cost of revenue."

 

The 17' 6" length was the more-or-less standard internal length for large cattle wagons at the time. This was increased to 18' 0" a few years later and wagons built after the adoption of movable partitions had to be a little bit longer still to allow for the thickness of the partition when stored at one end of the wagon. So a hirer presented with an older cattle wagon retrofitted with a partition was being short-changed, if he'd paid for a large wagon.

[Rivercider]

Is all the wharfage at Highbridge at the same height, or is there any lower section where cattle might be handled?

The high tidal range would greatly affect shipping alongside the wharf, though being dependant on tides to complete

unloading of a vessel would obviously be less than ideal,

 

cheers

[bécasse]

I wouldn't have thought that loading/unloading cattle using a sling would have been difficult, or particularly uncomfortable for the beast. I have certainly photographs of horses being loaded/unloaded in this way and would have thought that it would actually be easier with a cow than with a horse.

[johnofwessex]

Highbridge doesnt strike me as an obvious place for cattle traffic.

 

Are there any figures?

[phil_sutters]

On 04/07/2024 at 22:22, johnofwessex said:

Highbridge doesnt strike me as an obvious place for cattle traffic.

 

Are there any figures?

There was a cattle market immediately to the south of the Wharf and Highbridge Bacon Factory was a couple of hundred yards further south down Huntspill Road. Both the S&D and GWR had cattle docks. Chris Handley in his Maritime Activities of the S&DR, quotes tolls c1856 - horses 1/- per head, oxen and cows 6d per head and sheep & pigs 1/- per score. However the board showing the Wharf's tolls, undated in Atthill, makes no mention of cattle of any kind. I have yet to work out how the cattle, arriving at the Wharf cattle dock, got round to the market. There was siding that ran almost to the market, but this was not where the cattle dock was. It looks to me as if the beasts were driven out onto Church Street, later the A38, and along the roadway to and from the market. The GWR dock was in their goods yard, north of the stations and across the level crossing over the S&D's Burnham line. It could have been fun at the junction of Church Street and Market Street on  market days. - see below for 1919 details from Kelly's directory.

The remains of the S&D cattle dock were still there when I took some photos with very basic camera in about 1969.

 

Edited July 7 by phil_sutters

[phil_sutters]

11 hours ago, Rivercider said:

Is all the wharfage at Highbridge at the same height, or is there any lower section where cattle might be handled?

The high tidal range would greatly affect shipping alongside the wharf, though being dependant on tides to complete

unloading of a vessel would obviously be less than ideal,

 

cheers

It appears to have been more or less a straight run along, although the eastern end, which didn't have the steam crane tracks, was a bit lower. That was the area that some of the older sailing ships moored, including the trows that came down from the Severn. These could have been a source of cattle traffic.

[johnofwessex]

There was a lot of live cattle imported from Ireland but I am not aware of a regular service to Ireland from Highbridge that might have carried them

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

There was a lot of live cattle imported from Ireland but I am not aware of a regular service to Ireland from Highbridge that might have carried them

 

In James Joyce's Ulysses there is mention of a three masted barque (if I recall correctly) seen sailing into Dublin, from Bridgwater with bricks, the Rosevean. Could cattle have been a return cargo, or would such a vessel not meet the by then quite strict Min of Ag regulations for transport of cattle?

[Compound2632]

As to slates, would they not more likely have been carted or barrowed round by Bland's men rather than incurring the cost of railway wagon hire? If he had a contract to supply slates for a customer inland, would the slates still go to his yard first? I would have thought direct loading into a railway wagon at the wharf would only happen if the consignment was booked through to an inland destination.

Edited July 5 by Compound2632

[bécasse]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

In James Joyce's Ulysses there is mention of a three masted barque (if I recall correctly) seen sailing into Dublin, from Bridgwater with bricks, the Rosevean. Could cattle have been a return cargo, or would such a vessel not meet the by then quite strict Min of Ag regulations for transport of cattle?

Actually I suspect that cattle from Ireland would have been the real cargo with the bricks providing (a saleable) ballast on the return journey. I have come across other examples of bricks being used as sailing ship ballast.

[phil_sutters]

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

As to slates, would they not more likely have been carted or barrowed round by Bland's men rather than incurring the cost of railway wagon hire? If he had a contract to supply slates for a customer inland, would the slates still go to his yard first? I would have thought direct loading into a railway wagon at the wharf would only happen if the consignment was booked through to an inland destination.

You are probably right. The timber that did go to Bland's, and from the sight of loaded wagons full of timber alongside the quay, not all did, went by the traditional deal porter method, on the backs of the porters. What I haven't seen are any obvious walkways. The whole wharf yard just seems to have had ballast and other infill up to the tops of the sleepers. There were between six and seven tracks to cross from the quayside to Bland's yard, after negotiating the crane tracks. That was why I considered using railway wagons to shift the slate, which may not have been easy to barrow across the tracks and heavy to carry. It was I guess a relatively small part of the cargo traffic, so it was just curiosity that made me discuss it. Rails, other steels, coal and timber were the main cargoes handled.

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, bécasse said:

Actually I suspect that cattle from Ireland would have been the real cargo with the bricks providing (a saleable) ballast on the return journey. I have come across other examples of bricks being used as sailing ship ballast.

 

An interesting thought - and might well be true of a ship docking at Highbridge.

 

But it turns out that Rosevean's owner was a Bridgwater brick and tile manufacturer:

 

https://peterchrisp.blogspot.com/2023/04/on-trail-of-rosevean.html

 

https://bridgwaterheritage.com/wp/?pdfID=6785&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbridgwaterheritage.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F11%2FCoopers-Irene-article.pdf&index=2

[Rivercider]

12 hours ago, bécasse said:

Actually I suspect that cattle from Ireland would have been the real cargo with the bricks providing (a saleable) ballast on the return journey. I have come across other examples of bricks being used as sailing ship ballast.

Bricks as ballast is the reason there are so many Dutch style houses in Topsham for example, wool out, bricks in.

 

cheers

[phil_sutters]

Bridgwater was a renowned centre for brick manufacture. Highbridge also had several brickworks. There were three that at various times had sidings off the Burnham line, one opposite the Wharf and two further up towards Burnham. There were further ones to the east of the GWR line. Chris Handley doesn't specify what was used as ballast, but records many journeys across the Bristol Channel with the S&D's ships 'in ballast'. He records occasional voyages made by their ships to ports further afield, going as far as Plymouth to the South-west and Cardigan in west Wales. He makes no mention of Ireland.

Edited July 6 by phil_sutters

[phil_sutters]

On 04/07/2024 at 09:16, Compound2632 said:

In the full photo of No. 1242, Southern Wagons Vol. 1 plate 166, No. 681 does look to be longer than the standard 8-ton opens either side of it. 

That is a slightly cropped version of the official photo, not that anything significant has been removed. https://www.ipernity.com/doc/philsutters/26349941/in/album/512561

[Compound2632]

26 minutes ago, phil_sutters said:

That is a slightly cropped version of the official photo, not that anything significant has been removed. https://www.ipernity.com/doc/philsutters/26349941/in/album/512561

 

In fact as reproduced in Garner's Register it has a fraction more all round - one has the right-hand corner plate of No. 522 on the right and the door stop block of No. 233 on the left!

[wagonman]

On 06/07/2024 at 09:17, Rivercider said:

Bricks as ballast is the reason there are so many Dutch style houses in Topsham for example, wool out, bricks in.

 

cheers

 Likewise in north Norfolk – grain/malt out, bricks and tiles in from Rotterdam.