4 minutes ago, kitpw said:

Espacenet has the same data at https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19020529&CC=GB&NR=190111564A&KC=A# and also gives access to a copy of the Patent which states that the Williams were "Bachelors of Science, Engineers, of the Railway Appliances Works, Cathcart" (for which see Graces Guide https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Llewellyn_Wynn_Williams). Full illustrations of the device are included so a model can be made from the original patent drawings - I wonder how closely they were actually followed in manufacture?

 

Kit PW

 

Brilliant!

However...

The drawings don't show the semicircular guide of the GWR and LSWR types. Looking closely at the photo of the MR wagon @Compound2632 posted, it looks very like the drawing in this patent.

There are various other Williams patents in Espacenet relating to sheet supports, but none are for the GWR/LSWR type (one shows the semicircular guide, but is for a spring mechanism to slow the movement of the rail as it is lowered).

I don't think we are quite at the bottom of this yet...

Nick.

Meanwhile, confirmation in an email sent a couple of hours ago by a reader and correspondent currently wishing to remain anonymous:

Williams is a bit of a rabbit hole, not helped by at least two changes of name. Llewellyn Henry George Williams (also known as Henry Williams), was proprietor of Henry Williams Ltd, Railway Appliance Co., Glasgow. As such, in the first decade of the 20th century, he took out a number of railway-related patents including:

• Improvements in and relating to tarpaulin (sic) string and rope fasteners.
• Improvements in and relating to rodding for operating railway switches.
• Improvements in and relating to railway switch levers.
• Improvements in apparatus for operating facing point guards on railways.
• Improvements in and relating to devices for supporting, protecting, fixing, unfixing, and manipulating railway and other wagon tarpaulins and the like.
• Improvements in and relating to Railway Signalling.
• Improvements in and relating to burners for oil lamps.
• Improvements in and relating to receiving and delivering devices for tablets, staffs, and the like on railways.

By 1925 was also proprietor of Llewellyn and Sons, Houghton Bridge Waggon Works, Greencroft, West Darlington.  Henry Williams Ltd continued under Owen R. Williams and Denis D. Williams (siblings or sons?), and was listed as a Key British Enterprise by Dun & Bradstreet in 1961. In 1927 he changed his name by Deed Poll to Llewellyn Henry George Wynn-Williams, and the latest patent I've found so far was taken in the early 1930s for Improvements in and relating to electric relay systems for marine, aircraft and similar purposes.

Finally, Henry Williams isn't to be confused with another Williams (possibly Richard Price Williams?) who came up with Williams Patent Points. The insane idea behind this invention was that the main line rails shouldn’t be interrupted by switches or crossings, and that the wheels of stock on the diverging routes should instead be lifted over the main line running rails by way of a cast piece moved into place. Several were installed by the Greenock & Wemyss Bay Railway in the late 1884, much to the chagrin of the Caley who had to run the line. Maj-Gen. Hutchinson of the Inspectorate wasn’t very impressed, and sanctioned a trial for no more than six months, in which time at least two derailments occurred every month. The G&WBR naturally blamed this on the poor construction of the Ferniergair Coal Company’s wagons (which, as an exasperated Caley pointed out, ran perfectly well over the rest of its system). At the end of the six months the BoT recommended the G&WBR to replace the points, but to the Caley's dismay the G&WBR wanted to persevere with various modifications. Somehow they got away with it until early 1887 when an exasperated BoT told the company to replace them, a process which didn't begin until 1888, and it was as late as 1889 before the BoT was  informed that the last had been replaced with conventional switches.

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Meanwhile, confirmation in an email sent a couple of hours ago by a reader and correspondent currently wishing to remain anonymous:

 

Williams is a bit of a rabbit hole, not helped by at least two changes of name. Llewellyn Henry George Williams (also known as Henry Williams), was proprietor of Henry Williams Ltd, Railway Appliance Co., Glasgow. As such, in the first decade of the 20th century, he took out a number of railway-related patents including:

• Improvements in and relating to tarpaulin (sic) string and rope fasteners.
• Improvements in and relating to rodding for operating railway switches.
• Improvements in and relating to railway switch levers.
• Improvements in apparatus for operating facing point guards on railways.
• Improvements in and relating to devices for supporting, protecting, fixing, unfixing, and manipulating railway and other wagon tarpaulins and the like.
• Improvements in and relating to Railway Signalling.
• Improvements in and relating to burners for oil lamps.
• Improvements in and relating to receiving and delivering devices for tablets, staffs, and the like on railways.

By 1925 was also proprietor of Llewellyn and Sons, Houghton Bridge Waggon Works, Greencroft, West Darlington.  Henry Williams Ltd continued under Owen R. Williams and Denis D. Williams (siblings or sons?), and was listed as a Key British Enterprise by Dun & Bradstreet in 1961. In 1927 he changed his name by Deed Poll to Llewellyn Henry George Wynn-Williams, and the latest patent I've found so far was taken in the early 1930s for Improvements in and relating to electric relay systems for marine, aircraft and similar purposes.

Finally, Henry Williams isn't to be confused with another Williams (possibly Richard Price Williams?) who came up with Williams Patent Points. The insane idea behind this invention was that the main line rails shouldn’t be interrupted by switches or crossings, and that the wheels of stock on the diverging routes should instead be lifted over the main line running rails by way of a cast piece moved into place. Several were installed by the Greenock & Wemyss Bay Railway in the late 1884, much to the chagrin of the Caley who had to run the line. Maj-Gen. Hutchinson of the Inspectorate wasn’t very impressed, and sanctioned a trial for no more than six months, in which time at least two derailments occurred every month. The G&WBR naturally blamed this on the poor construction of the Ferniergair Coal Company’s wagons (which, as an exasperated Caley pointed out, ran perfectly well over the rest of its system). At the end of the six months the BoT recommended the G&WBR to replace the points, but to the Caley's dismay the G&WBR wanted to persevere with various modifications. Somehow they got away with it until early 1887 when an exasperated BoT told the company to replace them, a process which didn't begin until 1888, and it was as late as 1889 before the BoT was  informed that the last had been replaced with conventional switches.

Wow - the Williams Patent Point seems like a solution in search of a problem of the worst kind...

We still don't have a Williams (or other) patent for the semicircular guide type, though it could be argued the patent linked by @kitpw is functionally the same. Possibly the GWR type was developed after the patent application, but a further patent wasn't seen as necessary.

Nick.

1 hour ago, magmouse said:

The drawings don't show the semicircular guide of the GWR and LSWR types. Looking closely at the photo of the MR wagon @Compound2632 posted, it looks very like the drawing in this patent.

The description states:

Tarpaulin supports for railway wagons and other vehicles. The tube 1 has solid depending portions 2 pivoted to the ends 4 of the wagon. and, when elevated, is locked by tumblers 6 which engage channel guards 5 riveted to the arms 2.* The Provisional Specification states that a plate with jaws** may embrace the arms 2, the channel guards being dispensed with.

*Per the Midland example? The bit that sticks out to engage with the vertical part of the bar is pivoted.

**i.e. the semicircular guide with its semicircular cut-out to lock the bar vertical?

Or perhaps the semicircular guide is a GW invention, to avoid the patent. But then why do Atkins et al. think it is the Williams patent device?

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The description states:

 

Tarpaulin supports for railway wagons and other vehicles. The tube 1 has solid depending portions 2 pivoted to the ends 4 of the wagon. and, when elevated, is locked by tumblers 6 which engage channel guards 5 riveted to the arms 2.* The Provisional Specification states that a plate with jaws** may embrace the arms 2, the channel guards being dispensed with.

 

*Per the Midland example?

**i.e. the semicircular guide with its semicircular cut-out to lock the bar vertical?

 

Which document are you quoting from?  I can't find that exact text, and I am looking at patent 11564, at the link posted by Kit.

15 minutes ago, magmouse said:

 

Which document are you quoting from?  I can't find that exact text, and I am looking at patent 11564, at the link posted by Kit.

Clicking on Kit's first link takes me to "Bibliographic data: GB190111564 (A) ― 1902-05-29"; scrolling down, there is the summary I copied alongside the diagram. But I note that going to the Description, via the menu on the left, there is also the sentence "As an alternative arrangement we can effect this by substituting a plate with jaws, working on a hinge, for the tumblers, and doing away with the channel guard. In this case the jaws of the plate will grip the end of the tube and hold it firm in the centre position." This fuller explanation of the alternative arrangement does not after all seem to me to correspond to the semicircular guide.

Ah - I was looking at the original document, downloadable as a PDF from the ‘original document’ link on the left, which is why I didn’t recognise the exact text you quoted.

But yes, I also can’t reconcile the description of the alternative arrangement with the GWR style semi circular guide. So we aren’t quite there yet…

Nick.

A photo of the single trial use of the Marillier type by the GWR appears in both Atkins and Russell's GW Wagons Appendix:

I think the idea with both this and the Williams type used by the GWR and the LSWR is you lift the rail up to get the pin out of the notch in the semicircular guide, to allow it to tilt (rather than the patent we have seen so far, where there is a hook to lock the rail in place in the upright position.

the Marillier type seems to add a mechanism to restrain the rail as it fall sideways - I assume the outward curve of the guide, which is of a sprung steel, stops the rail just falling over, as it does with the other type.

Nick.

2 hours ago, kitpw said:

 Marillier et al were Swindon wagon builders - I assume Swindon = GWR.

Marillier was a GWR man, eventually becoming Carriage & Wagon Superintendent:

Marillier, Frank W.
Died 1928 aged 72. CBE. Pupil of Pearson, locomotive superintendent Bristol & Exeter Railway. In 1876 went to Swindon as a draughtsman; in 1898 manager of GWR wagon works at Saltney; and in 1914 appointed Carriage & Wagon Superintendent at Swindon. Retired 30 November 1920. Began his career on the Bristol & Exeter Railway. 

3 hours ago, kitpw said:

Marillier et al were Swindon wagon builders - I assume Swindon = GWR.

33 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Marillier was a GWR man, eventually becoming Carriage & Wagon Superintendent:

Kit's deduction is reasonable. Although the M&SWJR was undoubtedly the superior line at Swindon, its locomotive, carriage and wagon works were at Cirencester.

23 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The Study Centre does have Drg. 2820 for the D304 wagons, item 88-D1092, but I have not yet seen this.

I have now seen this drawing but it does not advance us much. As one would expect from the photo, the drawing shows a mechanism that is a dead ringer for the drawings in Williams' patent but there is no note or comment on the drawing concerning it.

But the chronology remains curious. Williams' patent is dated 29 May 1902 and the Midland was using this design in 1906/7. However, the arrangement with the semicircular guide is evidently earlier - the Great Western was using it from the first building of O4s in 1901, as far as I can make out, but the South Eastern was using it at least as early as 1897 - vide Southern Wagons Vol. 3 plates 31, 33, and 36. Plate 33 is a close up of the end of steel-framed wagon No. 2284, with what is said to be a patent plate mounted just below the pivot plate. The South Western seems also to have been using it from around about the same date - Southern Wagons Vol. 1 plates 25 and 26, the latter posted above.

So I suggest we should be looking for a Williams patent from the mid-90s for the arrangement used by the South Eastern, South Western, and Great Western. The Midland, coming later to the game, adopted an improved patent design - improved, I suggest, in that the sheet support did not have to be lifted up at both ends in order to drop it down to one side. But if this was an improvement, why did the RCH 1923 specification and later BR adopt the earlier pattern? Influence of the Swindon or Ashford C&W Drawing Office?

8 minutes ago, MarcD said:

Plate 4 in LNWR wagons vol 1 shows the LNWR experimenting with the on 1 Dia 4 4 plank and 4 dia 2 2 plank fixed sides.the 4 plank has a paint date of 04/09. there is another photo on page 36 of a Dia 2 2 plank fixed side with a rail no date. How ever both ae ex works and do contain the dimonds on the sides which was not used aftr 1910.

This is the SE/LSW/GW type, described in the captions as the "Williams automatic sheet support". A date of April 1909 is reasonable; the photo was taken at Earlestown and everything looks freshly painted.

27 minutes ago, Western Star said:

To my eye, this photo seems to present a wagon with black wheels / axle and that goes against all that we have been told for either the red or the grey liveries.

I can't recall the question being discussed. In fact, I don't think I can recall any explicit statement of the colour of wheels and axles for any wagon livery of any company, except for the Brighton, which is stated to have painted axles blue.

As an 00 bodger, they're a part of my models to which I am reluctant to draw too much attention!

Another rabbit hole, I suspect...

I have worked on the basis everything, including wheels, was painted the same colour. That has always been my understanding for the grey livery, though I have no idea where I got that impression from. I have - perhaps rather boldly - extended the logic to the red livery.

Here is a different crop of the wagon with the Marillier sheet supporter:

And yes, I would say the wheels are black while the rest is grey.

On the other hand:

This is a cattle wagon covered to an ale van, freshly outcropped in the small GW livery, so late 1930s. To me, that's all the same colour.

And:

This is a loco coal wagon with 25@ GW lettering. If you think loco coal wagons were black, as Jim Russell asserted, then this doesn't help, but I am very unconvinced. Certainly when I look at the above picture as a whole, I think either the GWR had a very feeble idea of black, or it's just grey.

Of course, there are many other photos that suggest one thing or the other, so I certainly don't claim definitive evidence, but on balance, my view is GWR wheels were generally body colour, with the occasional exception like the Marillier wagon above. Of course, wheels fitted in this picture might not have been new at the time, and perhaps the department refurbishing wheel sets mixed their own paint, as a separate process to the main paintshop.

Nick.

I have some questions:

1. Were wagon wheels and axles painted?
2. If so, why?
3. Did the GW manufacture its own wagon wheels and axles at this period, or buy them in from one of the specialist suppliers, such as that well-known Wednesbury firm, the Patent Shaft Co.?

Question 3 arises from my research into the MR C&W Committee minutes. Before the mid-70s, new wagons that were additions to stock were built by the wagon trade. They would quote for construction of the wagons but separate tenders would be put out for wheels and axles, and bearing and buffing springs, these being sourced from specialist suppliers. No doubt the wagon builders would also buy in such components for the PO wagons they were building. Then in the aftermath of the Great War, Reid several times complained that the limiting factor in the rate of wagon renewal was the supply of wheels and axles; at one point a batch was bought from a Belgian supplier.

Now, if I was to look at that photo of wagon No. 9669 with no knowledge of GW liveries to prejudice me, I think I would say that it was clear that the underframe - solebar, headstock, and running gear - was darker than the body. Note the change of shade on the headstock, even though the material seems to be continuous.

27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

• Were wagon wheels and axles painted?
• If so, why?
• Did the GW manufacture its own wagon wheels and axles at this period, or buy them in from one of the specialist suppliers, such as that well-known Wednesbury firm, the Patent Shaft Co.?

1. I think the picture of 9669 strongly suggests they were - wheel rim, brake block, push rods, etc., all the same tone. It seems to me very unlikely the different materials and manufacturing processes involved would all arrive at the same 'natural' finish.

2. Why paint anything? But yes, a fair question, since a big lump of steel isn't going to rust much relative to the life of the item. Are wheels painted these days?

3. No idea.

32 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Now, if I was to look at that photo of wagon No. 9669 with no knowledge of GW liveries to prejudice me, I think I would say that it was clear that the underframe - solebar, headstock, and running gear - was darker than the body. Note the change of shade on the headstock, even though the material seems to be continuous.

Have a look at the whole picture:

The sun is high in the sky (see the shadows of the springs) leaving the sole bar in shadow - all but the front edge of the bottom flange, which just catches the light. That's why the sole bar looks darker. The darker end to the buffer beam is because the ends of the buffer beams are angled, so the L-section in the corner bends to tuck under and follow the diagonal cut of the beam. The light on the buffer beam ends is therefore at a skimming angle to the surface and lights it less brightly.

I'm convinced this wagon is all the same colour, and I am fairly sure (but less certain) it is grey, not black.

Nick.

11 minutes ago, magmouse said:

The sun is high in the sky (see the shadows of the springs) leaving the sole bar in shadow - all but the front edge of the bottom flange, which just catches the light. That's why the sole bar looks darker. The darker end to the buffer beam is because the ends of the buffer beams are angled, so the L-section in the corner bends to tuck under and follow the diagonal cut of the beam. The light on the buffer beam ends is therefore at a skimming angle to the surface and lights it less brightly.

 

I'm convinced this wagon is all the same colour, and I am fairly sure (but less certain) it is grey, not black.

Yes, seeing the whole picture gives the eye more context. It becomes reasonably convincing that the axleguards are the same colour as the body side - they are in parallel planes under the same illumination. I would agree that if this is a photograph of a newly-painted wagon, it is not black - unless there has been some jiggery-pokery in the developing room to provide an image with better contrast.

A small comment, not about the colour of running gear and wheels, but about differentiating colour tones.

I made a little experiment once.  Same tone all over, it would seem:

But not so, in fact 🙂

Thanks Mikkel - a nice demo.

As a past professional lighting designer and lifelong photographer, I've spent a lot of time working out why things look the way they do under the effects of different lighting and image capture/processing. It's amazing how easy it is for the eye/brain to be fooled, but careful observation can usually give some clues as to what is going on.