Identification of stock at Frome

[RCP]

49 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

If you are modelling in 00, at least Rapido are giving you a flying start with an increasing number of late pre-grouping wagons. 

My bank account has noticed. I’m trying to decide on 00 EM or P4, I believe the rapido ones maybe easier to convert. I’m in the process of completing my first kit bash of a 48xx in 00 and used Ultrascale wheels. Hasn’t helped the decision making process as they look good. Then again so does the track in P4….

[Cwmtwrch]

22 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

The other grounded bodies in your pictures look to have elliptical roofs, so could be ex-LSWR stock.

This seems very unlikely, as Frome was a GWR station and the GW would presumably have had more than enough of their own life-expired stock. I suggest that these are probably bodies from 4- or 6-wheeled GW stock.

[RCP]

38 minutes ago, Cwmtwrch said:

This seems very unlikely, as Frome was a GWR station and the GW would presumably have had more than enough of their own life-expired stock. I suggest that these are probably bodies from 4- or 6-wheeled GW stock.

 

The right one appears to have 5 compartments but crucially no blank panels between them, the left one appears also to have no blank panels between compartments but potentially a brake van if such a thing existed. I haven't come across any pictures of GWR non corridor carriages like this. The honrby lswr model looks quite a close fit for the right hand one and about the right size 30ft.

Edited Thursday at 11:26 by RCP

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, RCP said:

 

The right one appears to have 5 compartments but crucially no blank panels between them, the left one appears also to have no blank panels between compartments but potentially a brake van if such a thing existed. I haven't come across any pictures of GWR non corridor carriages like this. The honrby lswr model looks quite a close fit for the right hand one and about the right size 30ft.

 

https://gwrcoaches.org.uk/

 

Have fun!

 

I think these could reasonably be interpreted as having the Dean three-arc roof.

[RCP]

49 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

https://gwrcoaches.org.uk/

 

Have fun!

 

I think these could reasonably be interpreted as having the Dean three-arc roof.

Excellent!

[Compound2632]

LNER, LMS, and Metropolitan open wagons with vacuum brake and LNER, LMS, Met, and SR covered wagons (vans) with vacuum brake became common user on 9 October 1936.

 

[Atkins et al., GWR Goods Wagons, Tatlow, LNER Wagons Vol. 4A.]

[johnofwessex]

Just now, Compound2632 said:

LNER, LMS, and Metropolitan open wagons with vacuum brake and LNER, LMS, Met, and SR covered wagons (vans) with vacuum brake became common user on 9 October 1936.

 

[Atkins et al., GWR Goods Wagons, Tatlow, LNER Wagons Vol. 4A.]

 

 

Why not the LNER?

[Compound2632]

23 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

Why not the LNER?

 

Assuming you mean, why not the GWR? 

 

There could be a variety of reasons:

 

At this date the LMS etc. were all using clasp brakes on vacuum-braked wagons whereas the GWR was using ordinary 'freighter' type brake gear, which may have met with diapproval.

 

The GWR generally ran its vacuum brakes at a higher pressure differential - so there might have been concern that the brakes of GWR vacuum stock would not come fully off. (But this evidently wasn't a problem for through working of passenger carriages.)

 

Did the GWR have a higher proportion of its fleet vacuum braked and thought it wouldn't get quid pro quo? 

 

Don't know!

Edited Thursday at 13:32 by Compound2632

[RCP]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

https://gwrcoaches.org.uk/

 

Have fun!

 

I think these could reasonably be interpreted as having the Dean three-arc roof.

 

This website is excellent. The obvious candidates are the following:

 

Both have coaches that were withdrawn in 1933 which matches the year I suspect the ones at Frome were placed there. Looking at the images one appears slightly longer than the other so perhaps D66. I can't make out any half moon door vents over the doors and the size seems about right. Only question now is what livery would they have been in and are kits available for them. 

Edited Friday at 06:28 by RCP
Clarity

[Jeremy Cumberland]

23 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The GWR generally ran its vacuum brakes at a higher pressure differential - so there might have been concern that the brakes of GWR vacuum stock would not come fully off. (But this evidently wasn't a problem for through working of passenger carriages.)

In practice I doubt this would matter. Vacuum brakes leak off over a few hours.

 

I seem to recall reading that through trains changing from GWR vacuuum pump fitted locomotives to anyone else's ejector-fitted locomotives would have the strings pulled throughout the train to reduce the vacuum in the cylinders. There was no need to fully release the brakes, just pull the strings long enough for the vacuum to drop from 25 inches to 21 inches or below.

[Cwmtwrch]

4 hours ago, RCP said:

I haven't come across any pictures of GWR non corridor carriages like this.

I can't comment one way or the other on this; it's well before my period of interest. However, since the photo was taken well after the grouping, stock from the GWR constituent companies also has to be taken into account, and the south Wales companies in particular were relatively late in building bogie stock, and then mostly for main line use.

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, Cwmtwrch said:

I can't comment one way or the other on this; it's well before my period of interest. However, since the photo was taken well after the grouping, stock from the GWR constituent companies also has to be taken into account, and the south Wales companies in particular were relatively late in building bogie stock, and then mostly for main line use.

 

Don't forget, though, that the four and six wheeled carriages were built in mind-bogglingly huge quantities compared to bogie carriages. There were a lot of them around for conversion to bothies.

[RCP]

 

I'm wondering if this one could be a Siphon C. The body is broken up at regular intervals (I can count 12) and there is a square knocked out perhaps where the slates were in one of the blocks. The length is somewhere between 10-20ft. The ends don't appear to have any struts  on them and seem plane.

 

Which brings us to the major issue with that choice namely the vents on the roof. That and I'm not sure if they had started being withdrawn at this point

Edited Thursday at 16:03 by RCP
format/detail

[Compound2632]

The things on the roof are most probably the lamps; more likely a composite such as U4 than a first such as R3.

 

I don't think it can be a siphon - in the second photo, the turn-under or tumblehome of the sides is clearly visible.

Edited Thursday at 16:08 by Compound2632

[57xx]

2 hours ago, RCP said:

 

This website is excellent. The obvious candidates are the following:

 

Both have coaches that were withdrawn in 1933 which matches the year I suspect they were placed there. Looking at the images one appears slightly longer than the other so perhaps D66. I can't make out any half moon door vents over the doors and the size seems about right. Only question now is what livery would they have been in and are kits available for them. 

 

You can thank @Penrhos1920 for that.

[The Stationmaster]

On 16/10/2024 at 08:29, jwealleans said:

I don't do GWR so I can't help with the carriages, but wagons are much more my thing.

 

From the bottom up;

 

I think those bogie bolsters are carrying tree trunks, maybe stripped of bark, maybe just a light colour.   A fairly common load.

 

your open is either LSWR or LBSCR.    From a modelling point if view the LBSC one is available from Cambrian.   The LSWR (which I think is more likely) was a D & S kit which may reappear in the revived ABS range as it returns to market.  The Cambrian in plastic, the ABS will be whitemetal.   Whatever you prefer.

 

Overall there are a lot of LMS wagons visible: was there a traffic from somewhere on the LMS system, or is this on a through freight route to somewhere more major?

Definitely timber -loaded as it should be loaded.

 

The presence of LMS wagons is interesting and might relate to a particular traffic flow or simply be a consequence of there being a national preponderance of LMS opens as stated by Stephen.  At that time there was no connection between the North Somerset line and the S&DJt at Radstock so they wouldn't have arrived via there.  But they could have come off the East Somerset which had a connection from the S&DJt at Wells or they could have come via Bristol and the North Somerset line.

 

The crane is interesting as the 1938 Handbook of Stations lists Frome as having a 6 ton crane but that is not the usual pattern of GWR 6 ton crane.  Was the crane renewed as part of the various works during the early '30s?

[The Stationmaster]

On 17/10/2024 at 15:12, Jeremy Cumberland said:

In practice I doubt this would matter. Vacuum brakes leak off over a few hours.

 

I seem to recall reading that through trains changing from GWR vacuuum pump fitted locomotives to anyone else's ejector-fitted locomotives would have the strings pulled throughout the train to reduce the vacuum in the cylinders. There was no need to fully release the brakes, just pull the strings long enough for the vacuum to drop from 25 inches to 21 inches or below.

No - the vacuum was required to be completely destroyed in that situation otherwise you could finish up with dragging brakes; hence even in later BR days we were always taught to fully destroy the vauum when pulling the strings.  The only occasion when partial destruction of the vacuum was officially used was if a GWR engine had over-created the vacuum on other companies' stock - i.e. taken it above 25" - and would be continuiong to work the train.

Edited Friday at 17:35 by The Stationmaster

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Definitely timber -loaded as it should be loaded.

 

The presence of LMS wagons is interesting and might relate to a particular traffic flow or simply be a consequence of there being a national preponderance of LMS opens as stated by Stephen.  At that time there was no connection between the North Somerset line and the S&DJt at Radstock so they wouldn't have arrived via there.  But they could have come off the East Somerset which had a connection from the S&DJt at Wells or they could have come via Bristol and the North Somerset 

 

I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall if I can't get even Mike to understand the consequences of the common user arrangement. Those LMS wagons could have come from anywhere in the country but equally could have been being used locally for short-distance traffic between neighbouring GWR stations for weeks or even months. One can read absolutely nothing into their presence beyond the fact that the common user system worked!

[jwealleans]

This thread isn't the place to restart the debate, but we have in the past discussed some of the goods train compositions recorded by Roye England and the fact that those originating within the GW contained significantly more home team wagons than those coming from inter-company exchange points. I'm not in any way suggesting that an unusual number of LMS wagons establishes that there must be some traffic into or from the LMS network, only that it might reflect that.   I'd expect the OP to find corroborating evidence before it's presented as fact.   It may indeed just reflect the ebb and flow of common user wagons.   The day the picture was taken might be the only one where that number of LMS wagons were gathered together in that place, but it's obvious enough that I'm not the only one to have noticed it, so it was worth at least pointing out.

[RCP]

13 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The crane is interesting as the 1938 Handbook of Stations lists Frome as having a 6 ton crane but that is not the usual pattern of GWR 6 ton crane.  Was the crane renewed as part of the various works during the early '30s?

The crane has me confused. I looked in the historical survey book and it lists a 6 and a 3. Looking at the aerial photos you can see a GWR 6t on the east (I’ve ordered one from harlequin for that) The one in the sidings is a curved jib and column variety. Only a photo I’ve found that is vaguely similar is this one from wales, Tir-Phil. 

 

I’ll post some more screen grabs later from the aerial photos. Currently on baby duty.

 

Edited Saturday at 06:59 by RCP
Detail

[Compound2632]

13 hours ago, jwealleans said:

This thread isn't the place to restart the debate, but we have in the past discussed some of the goods train compositions recorded by Roye England and the fact that those originating within the GW contained significantly more home team wagons than those coming from inter-company exchange points. 

 

It would be very interesting to see the raw data here and understand the context in which it was collected.

 

13 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 I'm not in any way suggesting that an unusual number of LMS wagons establishes that there must be some traffic into or from the LMS network, only that it might reflect that.

 

The consequence of the common user arrangement is that traffic from the LMS is as likely to come in  an LNER, GWR, or SR wagon as an LMS wagon (pro rata, of course) - so about a 40% probability of an LMS wagon? (I haven't got Tatlow to hand). But the same probability applies to a wagon from a non-LMS point of origin.

[The Stationmaster]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall if I can't get even Mike to understand the consequences of the common user arrangement. Those LMS wagons could have come from anywhere in the country but equally could have been being used locally for short-distance traffic between neighbouring GWR stations for weeks or even months. One can read absolutely nothing into their presence beyond the fact that the common user system worked!

Stephen note what i did say -

'or simply be a consequence of there being a national preponderance of LMS opens as stated by Stephen'

i.e there was a lot of them which, in turn,  meant they were likely to turn up anywhere as they were pooled

 

4 hours ago, RCP said:

The crane has me confused. I looked in the historical survey book and it lists a 6 and a 3. Looking at the aerial photos you can see a GWR 6t on the east (I’ve ordered one from harlequin for that) The one in the sidings is a curved jib and column variety. Only a photo I’ve found that is vaguely similar is this one from wales, Tir-Phil. 

 

I’ll post some more screen grabs later from the aerial photos. Currently on baby duty.

 

Interesting but the Handbook of Stations only mentions the 6 tonner.   I wonder if a smaller crane originally existed in a shed - I note that part of the siding has a platform level arrangement next to it.  

 

I doubt you'll find anyone around who can remember what the goods arrangements on the Up side were at Frome as they're long gone and all the local railwaymen who might have some memory of them, albeit in BR days, have also gone.    The goods shed survived well into the 1970s but I certainly can't remember there being a crane inside on the only occasion I visited the tenant - whose business was recycling plastic (even back in the 1970s) .

 

There were of course a couple of private sidings there as well although I'm certain that was not one of them.

 

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It would be very interesting to see the raw data here and understand the context in which it was collected.

 

Very much a separate issue here.  Roye England noted down train formations, in considerable detail, contemporaneously from personal observation and as he was always very punctilious in noting his observations of both trans and buildings I would be surprised if he made any errors.

 

The other thing about generalisations with statistics suc as the size and composition of common user wagon fleets is that they are exactly that - generalisations, albeit taking into account a balance of probability.  It's like the comment above about PO wagons outnumbering company owned wagons on the GWR - if you went to certain parts of the GWR they'd outnumber them by something like 100 to 1 or there might not be any company owned wagons at all.  Other places PO wagons would be a rarity.  In marshalling yards and sorting sidings, and even general goods yards the balance would depend entirely on what traffics that yard serviced.

 

Go to Reading in pre-war days and in Vastern Road (new) yard PO wagons would be the substantial majority, cross over the road to the GWR Goods Depot yard and,  depending on how they were shunted to/from the Low Level , there might not be any apart from a few going to/from H&P's sidings.  Go round to Reading Central Goods and the balance would be completely different.  

 

I suspect that, while agreeing there was a massive national preponderance of one company's pooled wagons, something similar might apply.  For example in Vastern Road yard the nature of the non-coal traffic was such that pooled opens would be less common visitors; cross over the road to the Goods Depot and pooled opens were far more likely to be seen.  So, while I don't argue with the numbers on the effect of pooling,  an awful would always depend on how traffic was worked and what traffic yards dealt with.

[Harlequin]

Mention of a 3 ton crane is interesting because the jib we can see in the photos looks like the same pattern as the 3-ton rail mounted cranes. E.g.:

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/270/no-537-3-ton-hand-crane

 

I can't find a ground-mounted 3 ton crane using the same type of jib, yet, though.

 

[RCP]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Interesting but the Handbook of Stations only mentions the 6 tonner.   I wonder if a smaller crane originally existed in a shed - I note that part of the siding has a platform level arrangement next to it.  

This two circles in the shed? 

 

This is from a Historical survey vol3. 

The crane isn't shown here however the 1929 aerial photo shows this:

 

 

Now when you look at the os maps you see the following:

 

The crane to the east is the type that Harlequin made a kit for, see:

 

 

So I think the crane near the carpark was there from an early date. The 7t was switched to a 6t when the extra sidings were added.

 

So the question is, is this the 3t crane and if so what are its origins, I'm trying to identify suppliers of cranes to the rail industry, however a time period would be advantageous...

 

 

Edited Saturday at 15:19 by RCP