Castle Aching

[Compound2632]

One might suppose that wagons ordered for the opening would be numbered in some tidy way, such as a continuous series but different types of wagons in blocks in that series. The additions to stock would occupy further blocks by type, being ordered by type, of course - another 100 opens, another 40 cattle wagons, and so on. The fun starts when old wagons are renewed, either by locally-built replacements or wagons bought new from the trade. These take the numbers of the wagons they replace; the replacement wagons may or may not be of the same type - open renewed as open, or open renewed as van, if there are too many opens and not enough vans...

 

Then of course you get up to 117,000+ wagons in the fleet and there's an office fire, destroying the ledgers...

[Nearholmer]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

and there's an office fire, destroying the ledgers...

Ah, drat, another tool useful to the Chief Accountant is revealed!

 

Its surprising the worries that one carelessly spilt five gallon can of lamp oil can erase.

 

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Annie]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Then of course you get up to 117,000+ wagons in the fleet and there's an office fire, destroying the ledgers...

    

 

I think the point to start at with wagons is to look at the traffic that the W.N.R. is carrying, where it's coming from and where it's going to.

On my own tramways I was surprised to discover just how many 3 plank dropside merchandise wagons (with a selection of tarpaulins) I needed.  Then there were fixed side 2 plank wagons for carrying bulky loads like wool bales and hay; mineral opens for sand and gravel; a motley collection of 5 plank PO wagons for coal (because local traders find them easier to unload); lots of sheep wagons and cattle wagons (thank you 1860s LNWR); vented vans for milk, cheese and farm produce; ordinary merchandise vans, - but merchandise opens should outnumber them at least 3:1; horse boxes, - but I've only got two not counting the ones belonging to other railways.

 

I'm nowhere near having the balance and numbers right yet, but once I started looking at the traffic my little railway empire was handling I found I was tending to under estimate rather than over estimate.

 

 

[ChrisN]

The Cambrian, which was not a big railway but had 100 locomotives eventually, numbered both its wagons, and coaches sequentially.  This was an accounting exercise, as when a wagon was removed and replaced it appeared that nothing had happened as there were still the same number on the register.  (It makes it thoroughly annoying trying to work out what they had, as there is no record of older vehicles.)  I would suggest a simple method like that would satisfy your accountant and Directors.

 

So, Cambrian 2planks built by Ashbury in 1886, so wooden, certainly one brake but with those newfangled buffer types, rated at 8 tons, with a tare between 4-19-0 and 5-7-0.

They had some 8 plank coal wagons, unusual as they were quite large, rated at 15 tons with a tare between 6-11-0 and 7-2-0.

They had timber wagons, rated at 7 tons with a tare of between 5-5-0 and 5-9-0 or thereabouts.

 

At grouping there were 2517 wagons, but of course the Cambrian had no large industries, except perhaps timber.  They numbered the brake vans separately, as well as travelling cranes and travelling gas holders.

 

If you want individual numbers of each type, then please say and I will try and get that for you.

 

I hope this is helpful and what you were looking for.

Edited September 9, 2021 by ChrisN

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Annie said:

I'm nowhere near having the balance and numbers right yet, but once I started looking at the traffic my little railway empire was handling I found I was tending to under estimate rather than over estimate.

 

For most of the larger railways, something around 100 wagons per goods locomotive seems to be a rule of thumb. But that doesn't carry over to a model railway, since the utilisation of wagons was, in general, much lower than of goods engines.

[Edwardian]

39 minutes ago, Annie said:

    

 

I think the point to start at with wagons is to look at the traffic that the W.N.R. is carrying, where it's coming from and where it's going to.

On my own tramways I was surprised to discover just how many 3 plank dropside merchandise wagons (with a selection of tarpaulins) I needed.  Then there were fixed side 2 plank wagons for carrying bulky loads like wool bales and hay; mineral opens for sand and gravel; a motley collection of 5 plank PO wagons for coal (because local traders find them easier to unload); lots of sheep wagons and cattle wagons (thank you 1860s LNWR); vented vans for milk, cheese and farm produce; ordinary merchandise vans, - but merchandise opens should outnumber them at least 3:1; horse boxes, - but I've only got two not counting the ones belonging to other railways.

 

I'm nowhere near having the balance and numbers right yet, but once I started looking at the traffic my little railway empire was handling I found I was tending to under estimate rather than over estimate.

 

 

 

You seem I don't think there is anything particularly distinctive about WN traffic.

 

On the basis that coal is incoming, to supply the districts served by the railway, this arrived either by rail on POs, or, by sea, in which case it is conveyed by WNR coal wagons, which I suggest are older, mainly dumb-buffered, types, because, effectively, they are 'internal user'.

 

The fleet needs to include bolsters, for the Baltic timber traffic, and implement wagons, to serve the agricultural engineers based on the system.  I have not identified a need for any other specialist wagons.

 

There needs to be a reasonable proportion of livestock wagons, as its a rural area and several towns have livestock markets.

 

Any milk, perishable and horse traffic will be dealt with by NPCs. I don't see the need for specialist goods vans, e.g. perishable, refrigerated and/or fitted. 

 

Most wagons, therefore, will need to be a typical mix of opens and covered wagons for general merchandise. 

 

There will need to be a reasonable number of dropsides, reflecting the quarrying interests connected by the Norfolk Minerals Railway.

 

I'm pretty happy with the mix and proportion of wagons planned.  What I really need to figure out is approximate numbers of wagons. 

 

So. we will have a number of towns (6), served exclusively by the WNR: Achingham, Birchoverham Market, Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea, Halte, Whereham and Wenmondham.  These will all have the full variety of goods in and out of a country town, including livestock, diary business, gasworks, bell foundry, agricultural engineers. Norfolk Fish Oil & Guano and Norfolk Oilfields have their own PO fleets for outgoing product, Huntley & Palmer (Royal Sandringham Lavender Biscuits) and Coleman's Mustard do not (but most of the outbound product goes via the GE).   

 

Towns where the WNR has a share of traffic: Bishop's Lynn, Bury St Edmunds and Norwich.

 

Ports & Harbours:  Birchoverham Staithe (minor), Bishop's Lynn (major - coastal, fishing and ocean going (Baltic/Germany, UK); Fakeney (medium - coastal, fishing), Shepherd's Port & Wolfringham Staithe (minor - coastal, fishing, NE colliers).   

 

Prosperous and major villages would include: Castle Aching, Fakeney, Flocking, Hillingham, Middling Walsingham, Mundwold, Watton, Wolfringham St Felix.

 

All this over some 160 route miles.

 

I'm just trying to get a sense of the appropriate scale of a wagon fleet to cope with all this.

 

6 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

The Cambrian, which was not a big railway but had 100 locomotives eventually, numbered both its wagons, and coaches sequentially.  This was an accounting exercise, as when a wagon was removed and replaced it appeared that nothing had happened as there were still the same number on the register.  (It makes it thoroughly annoying trying to work out what they had, as there is no record of older vehicles.)  I would suggest a simple method like that would satisfy your accountant and Directors.

 

So, Cambrian 2planks built by Ashbury in 1886, so wooden, certainly one brake but with those newfangled buffer types, rated at 8 tons, with a tare between 4-19-0 and 5-7-0.

They had some 8 plank coal wagons, unusual as they were quite large, rated at 15 tons with a tare between 6-11-0 and 7-2-0.

They had timber wagons, rated at 7 tons with a tare of between 5-5-0 and 5-9-0 or thereabouts.

 

At grouping there were 2517 wagons, but of course the Cambrian had no large industries, except perhaps timber.  They numbered the brake vans separately, as well as travelling cranes and travelling gas holders.

 

If you want individual numbers of each type, then please say and I will try and get that for you.

 

 

That is helpful in a number of ways, thanks, Chris.

 

Am I right in thinking that the Cambrian had something like 180 route miles?

 

I note the Cambrian boasted 100 locomotives*. I am conscious that, with just 35 locomotives (including the trams) I may well have under-catered for the WNR.  The key concern, however, is whether the 20 mainline locomotives (10 passenger, 7 goods, 3 mixed traffic) could cover the traffic on 100 odd miles of mainline going between Norwich to the East to Magdalen in the West and Bury St Edmunds in the south to Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea in the north.  

 

Nonetheless, 2,517 is an eye-watering number of wagons.  Does that include departmental wagons, do you know?

 

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

For most of the larger railways, something around 100 wagons per goods locomotive seems to be a rule of thumb. But that doesn't carry over to a model railway, since the utilisation of wagons was, in general, much lower than of goods engines.

 

Which makes the Cambrian interesting.  According to the Wiki list of the 94 Standard Gauge Cam Rys locos absorbed by the GW, 34 of them were 0-6-0 tender engines. There were 4 industrial/shunting type 0-6-0 tanks additionally, so I have not counted these as goods train engines.  The remainder (56), look to be passenger types. 

 

So, that would result in 3,400 wagons, if the 100 wagon rule of thumb of larger companies applied. 

 

The Cambrian ratio at Grouping was more like 74 wagons per goods engine.

 

The plan was to allocate one of the 3 WNR mixed traffic locos to PW trains and Engineers and Directors inspection runs (the ex-CMR 2-4-0 rebuild), obe to passenger duties (the Crewe Type 2-4-0) and one to goods (the Cowan miniature K Class 4-4-0).  So, that gives me 8 goods engines.  assuming, for one crazy moment, that this suffice for the WNR's needs, the Cambrian ratio gets us to 592 wagons (I plan 70).  This, however, is to work the wrong way; from the number of locomotives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

* According to Wiki, in 1911 there were 91 locomotives and one rail motor car in the Cambrian's rolling stock. At grouping in 1922, 94 standard-gauge engines and five narrow-gauge engines were transferred to the GWR.  

 

[Northroader]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Always a rarity for some of us!

 

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

On the basis that coal is incoming, to supply the districts served by the railway, this arrived either by rail on POs, or, by sea, in which case it is conveyed by WNR coal wagons, which I suggest are older, mainly dumb-buffered, types, because, effectively, they are 'internal user'.

 

I think that, for 1905, you should probably allow for a good proportion of the rail-borne coal traffic to be arriving in Midland or Great Northern wagons, possibly even LNWR wagons, as well as PO wagons. 

 

There were still plenty of dumb-buffered PO wagons about at that date, so no very great shame on your WNR ones.

[Northroader]

OK, bright idea no.2, each type of wagon gets a prefix letter:

[Annie]

7 minutes ago, Northroader said:

OK, bright idea no.2, each type of wagon gets a prefix letter:

Now that is a really good idea.  I might just borrow that for my own trainset.

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Northroader said:

OK, bright idea no.2, each type of wagon gets a prefix letter:

 The North Eastern tried doing that once their fleet got into six digits, such long numbers being too much for the numbertakers to note down in one go. (Try the experiment). So instead of 122678 they had G. 678 (not a real example).

 

But I don't think that's quite the West Norfolk's situation, yet. 

 

I don't think they had numbertakers on the Isle of Man - even with the two companies I don't suppose the interchange of traffic was so onerous that the RCH had to be called in!

[Northroader]

More common in Europe, 1st class A, 2nd class B, 3rd class C, passgr. vans D, then goods stock any number of  variations. I’ve only seen it in the IoM this side of the Channel.

The NER just placed a prefix letter in front as a substitute for a block of numbers, reducing the amount of work for number checkers.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Northroader

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Northroader said:

More common in Europe, 1st class A, 2nd class B, 3rd class C, passgr. vans D, then goods stock any number of  variations. I’ve only seen it in the IoM this side of the Channel.

 

Much more confusing is a separate number series for each type without any prefix. I've not come across such a thing for wagons but it was common for passenger stock, so there could be half-a-dozen No. 1s - first class, second class, third class, composite, brake van, horse box, carriage truck, and TPO. Convenient for the accountant, who had to make returns of stock under those headings to the BoT.

 

On the Midland Scotch Expresses in the 1890s/1900s one ended up with M&SWJS First Class Dining Carriage No. 1 running coupled to M&SWJS Third Class Dining Carriage No. 1 (& No. 2, but not No. 3 as the third first class diner was a Midland not a joint stock vehicle.)

Edited September 9, 2021 by Compound2632

[Annie]

We had it here in NZ with each class of wagon having its own letter prefix and number series.  I have no idea how it's done now, but that was how it was done during the 20th century. 

[Caley Jim]

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Sample Tare table thus:

............

Any comments, corrections or additions gratefully received at this point.

Diagram tare weights for some similar CR wagons (* from photo) (all wooden UF):

 

Dia 22 4 plank 8T mineral 13'5" OH; Dumb buffered  5-9; spring buffered  5-12* (1 brake block)

Dia 46 4 plank 8T mineral 15'0" OH; 5-19 (1 brake block); 6-1* (2 brake blocks)

Dia 14 8T bolster 10'6" OH 5-1

Dia 16 1 plank  8T pig iron 15' OH 5-6

Dia 15 4 plank 8T dropside and similar Dia 24 side door goods wagons 15' OH 5-8

Dia 3 6T covered van 16'9" OH 6-14

 

HTH

 

Regarding loco requirements, don't forget that on any given day there will locos out of service for boiler washouts or minor repairs and others will be out of service for several days or weeks while they undergo various levels of overhaul, so numbers need to reflect that.  As an example, on the Highland Railway, during the winter, when the line was quieter, almost 50% of the loco stock were in Lochgorm Works undergoing overhaul on any given day, so that come the summer months the entire fleet had undergone some level of overhaul.

 

Jim

 

 

[Annie]

26 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I think that, for 1905, you should probably allow for a good proportion of the rail-borne coal traffic to be arriving in Midland or Great Northern wagons, possibly even LNWR wagons, as well as PO wagons. 

The GN-GE Joint Line was properly up and running in the 1880s so I would pick rail-borne coal traffic to be well and truly established circa 1905.  At a guess (since I am definitely not an expert when it comes to coal) I would say that the more special types of coal would be brought into Norfolk by ship so this wouldn't be a major source of traffic for the W.N.R.  Timber on the other hand definitely would be.

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Annie said:

At a guess (since I am definitely not an expert when it comes to coal) I would say that the more special types of coal would be brought into Norfolk by ship so this wouldn't be a major source of traffic for the W.N.R.  Timber on the other hand definitely would be.

 

As far as I've been able to work out, gas coal mostly came from the East Midlands and South Yorkshire, so would come by rail. Industries such as brewing that needed coal with a negligible arsenic content would be buying from South Wales or, nearer at hand, North Warwickshire. But house coal might come in by ship from the North East.

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, Annie said:

The GN-GE Joint Line was properly up and running in the 1880s so I would pick rail-borne coal traffic to be well and truly established circa 1905.  At a guess (since I am definitely not an expert when it comes to coal) I would say that the more special types of coal would be brought into Norfolk by ship so this wouldn't be a major source of traffic for the W.N.R.  Timber on the other hand definitely would be.

 

Yes, a big part of the Joint Railway was GE access to coalfields.  I have PO wagons from places such as Pontefract with that very route in mind.

 

Lots of Baltic timber came to ports like Wisbech and King's Lynn, so, yes.

 

Specialist coal?  Will have to think about that.

 

Historically coal from NE colliers would have been landed at Wolfringham Staithe, though whether a WNR-controlled line would have run there before the Joint Railway was able to run coal south (1882-1883), I'm not sure.  We have not established, I think, when the line was built to Wolfringham Staithe (the ruinous scheme to develop Shepherd's Port was fin de siècle folly, but the line to Wolfringham Staithe could be much older, perhaps a development of the 1870s.  The decline in seaborne coal as more coal came in from the Joint Railway, might have been an additional factor in the decline of this line and its reduction to Light Railway status. 

 

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As far as I've been able to work out, gas coal mostly came from the East Midlands and South Yorkshire, so would come by rail. Industries such as brewing that needed coal with a negligible arsenic content would be buying from South Wales or, nearer at hand, North Warwickshire. But house coal might come in by ship from the North East.

 

Which justifies coal also from the routes you mentioned earlier. 

 

Did the LNWR carry coal traffic, like the NE, in its own wagons?  That would be useful given the Ratio kit is 50% coal wagon!

 

Earlier, I forgot to mention the 3 branch/short trip 0-6-0 goods tanks, so 11 locos, at present, devoted to goods traffic; still a third of what the Cambrian ran. 

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

For most of the larger railways, something around 100 wagons per goods locomotive seems to be a rule of thumb. But that doesn't carry over to a model railway, since the utilisation of wagons was, in general, much lower than of goods engines.

The principle reason for building railways was bulk transport of minerals, particularly coal. Unfortunately, the usage of wagons was poor in many cases, with colliery yards, marshalling yards and other sidings full of goal wagons acting as mobile storage facilities. And then the wagons were frequently of a size (small) to suit local merchants, and also to fit under colliery screens that were fairly low. They would also be more concentrated near areas of production, usage, or remarshalling (e.g. junctions, some of which may have grown their own small communities to serve them).

There were far too many far too small wagons moving far too I frequently over fat too short distances, certainly by the grouping if not earlier: witness the resistance to Felix Pole’s larger wagons in South Wagons. 
WWI gave the railways unified control, but unfortunately money was required to support the war machine, so the investment required to follow the example of the NER as a prime example by introducing hopper wagons designed for rapid unloading was lost. 
The desperate need to replace wooden framed and bodied ex-PO wagons led to too many 16T steel mineral wagons, too, but that’s another story.

 

The point is that when you get to large quantities, averages don’t work: they smother everything and literally turn it all to mediocrity. The much-quoted articles on “getting balance right” by the late Don Rowland in the 1970s were hocus-pokery masquerading as science. 
 

The only way to get the numbers of wagons right, James, is to look at what (little) information might be available for a similar line with a traffic profile similar to yours, which you gave hinted at.

 

Averages do have their place in the scheme of things, but like all statistics, they don’t lie but are prone to manipulation and misrepresentation, even by intelligent, educated businessmen put under political pressure to “save money”. Can’t quite think of his name, but he probably never saw the railways (at least, not at an age when he would be able to remember) at their prime. Anyway, poor sod was given an unfair press and a somewhat poisoned chalice, IMRO.

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Did the LNWR carry coal traffic, like the NE, in its own wagons?  That would be useful given the Ratio kit is 50% coal wagon!

 

There's a sliding scale between the North Eastern, virtually all of whose coal traffic was carried in its own wagons, and the Great Western, which was almost entirely reliant on the trade "finding its own wagons". On the Midland it was perhaps 50:50 by 1905; my gut feeling is that the Great Northern was a bit more PO-dominated. The LNWR had nearly 7,000 traffic coal wagons - probably a smaller proportion than the GN. Most of these were 8 ton 4-plank wagons, D53, built 1883-1894. Many of these were rebuilt as 10 ton 5-plank wagons, D54, a few in 1903 but in bulk from 1905. It is these conversions that the Ratio kit represents. They're really too late for my c. 1902 period - latterly I have been converting them to D53 by chopping off the top plank and primitivising the brake gear but I still have too many D54. Would you like a couple?

 

The other wagon in the Ratio kit is very useful - it can represent ether the 7 ton open, D4, built from 1894, or the 10 ton D9, many of which were rebuilt from D4 - at the end of 1922 there were still over 18,000 in traffic. They're the LNWR equivalent of the Great Western 4-plank open or the Midland D299 5-plank open.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Compound2632

[Andy Hayter]

34 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

Historically coal from NE colliers would have been landed at Wolfringham Staithe, though whether a WNR-controlled line would have run there before the Joint Railway was able to run coal south (1882-1883), I'm not sure.  We have not established, I think, when the line was built to Wolfringham Staithe (the ruinous scheme to develop Shepherd's Port was fin de siècle folly, but the line to Wolfringham Staithe could be much older, perhaps a development of the 1870s.  The decline in seaborne coal as more coal came in from the Joint Railway, might have been an additional factor in the decline of this line and its reduction to Light Railway status. 

 

 

 

 

Might I be so bold as to suggest that coal from the North East would have been imported from perhaps the end of the 16th century.  With a distinct lack of trees in West Norfolk, coal or maybe coke would have been a major fuel source.  The coal traffic from Wolfringham Staithe would therefore have been a major target for any proposed rail line in the area.   This suggests to me that this would be one of the earliest if not the first line to be proposed.  

[ChrisN]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

That is helpful in a number of ways, thanks, Chris.

 

Am I right in thinking that the Cambrian had something like 180 route miles?

 

I note the Cambrian boasted 100 locomotives*. I am conscious that, with just 35 locomotives (including the trams) I may well have under-catered for the WNR.  The key concern, however, is whether the 20 mainline locomotives (10 passenger, 7 goods, 3 mixed traffic) could cover the traffic on 100 odd miles of mainline going between Norwich to the East to Magdalen in the West and Bury St Edmunds in the south to Birchoverham-Next-the-Sea in the north.  

 

Nonetheless, 2,517 is an eye-watering number of wagons.  Does that include departmental wagons, do you know?

 

 

Which makes the Cambrian interesting.  According to the Wiki list of the 94 Standard Gauge Cam Rys locos absorbed by the GW, 34 of them were 0-6-0 tender engines. There were 4 industrial/shunting type 0-6-0 tanks additionally, so I have not counted these as goods train engines.  The remainder (56), look to be passenger types. 

 

So, that would result in 3,400 wagons, if the 100 wagon rule of thumb of larger companies applied. 

 

The Cambrian ratio at Grouping was more like 74 wagons per goods engine.

 

The plan was to allocate one of the 3 WNR mixed traffic locos to PW trains and Engineers and Directors inspection runs (the ex-CMR 2-4-0 rebuild), obe to passenger duties (the Crewe Type 2-4-0) and one to goods (the Cowan miniature K Class 4-4-0).  So, that gives me 8 goods engines.  assuming, for one crazy moment, that this suffice for the WNR's needs, the Cambrian ratio gets us to 592 wagons (I plan 70).  This, however, is to work the wrong way; from the number of locomotives.

 

* According to Wiki, in 1911 there were 91 locomotives and one rail motor car in the Cambrian's rolling stock. At grouping in 1922, 94 standard-gauge engines and five narrow-gauge engines were transferred to the GWR.  

 

 

James,

The total route miles was 230 miles.  

 

Do not be fooled into thinking that the Cambrian only used its 0-6-0s for goods work, or that its goods work was only done by 0-6-0s.  

 

On the Coast Line there were 3 passenger trains each way, one goods and passenger each way, a goods and mail, and three goods trains.  The only way that the crews and engines would get home and avoid it being a lodging trip would be that a one goods engine would take a passenger train back and one passenger engine would take a goods train back.

 

There were no collieries in the Cambrian area, so coal movement was for domestic, or coal gas use, and of course brewing.

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

Might I be so bold as to suggest that coal from the North East would have been imported from perhaps the end of the 16th century.  With a distinct lack of trees in West Norfolk, coal or maybe coke would have been a major fuel source.  The coal traffic from Wolfringham Staithe would therefore have been a major target for any proposed rail line in the area.   This suggests to me that this would be one of the earliest if not the first line to be proposed.  

 

Indeed, perhaps starting out as a Georgian tramroad.

[Edwardian]

34 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

There's a sliding scale between the North Eastern, virtually all of whose coal traffic was carried in its own wagons, and the Great Western, which was almost entirely reliant on the trade "finding its own wagons". On the Midland it was perhaps 50:50 by 1905; my gut feeling is that the Great Northern was a bit more PO-dominated. The LNWR had nearly 7,000 traffic coal wagons - probably a smaller proportion than the GN. Most of these were 8 ton 4-plank wagons, D53, built 1883-1894. Many of these were rebuilt as 10 ton 5-plank wagons, D54, a few in 1903 but in bulk from 1905. It is these conversions that the Ratio kit represents. They're really too late for my c. 1902 period - latterly I have been converting them to D53 by chopping off the top plank and primitivising the brake gear but I still have too many D54. Would you like a couple?

 

The other wagon in the Ratio kit is very useful - it can represent ether the 7 ton open, D4, built from 1894, or the 10 ton D9, many of which were rebuilt from D4 - at the end of 1922 there were still over 18,000 in traffic. They're the LNWR equivalent of the Great Western 4-plank open or the Midland D299 5-plank open.

 

Thank you.  I had not thought the LNWR coal wagons would be of any use.  Now that I know better, I would certainly be grateful for a couple, though I think I should also like to learn how you treat them to gain D53s, as this seems more appropriate (I already have one made up as a D54).

 

25 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

 

Might I be so bold as to suggest that coal from the North East would have been imported from perhaps the end of the 16th century.  With a distinct lack of trees in West Norfolk, coal or maybe coke would have been a major fuel source.  The coal traffic from Wolfringham Staithe would therefore have been a major target for any proposed rail line in the area.   This suggests to me that this would be one of the earliest if not the first line to be proposed.  

 

Yes, of course, you are right on all counts now I think about it, so, yes, perhaps this is the first extension, or there is an earlier line subsumed when the Castle Aching - Birchoverhams Railway is built.  

 

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Indeed, perhaps starting out as a Georgian tramroad.

 

Yes, that very thought was crossing my mind.  Certainly a pre-steam tramway.  

 

There will need to be some convoluted history whereby the route becomes subsumed by the Castle Aching - Birchoverhams Railway (1855), more or less immediately, rather than developing along with other primitive tramways in the area, which go on to form the rather ramshackle Norfolk Minerals Railway.

 

 

23 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

 

James,

The total route miles was 230 miles.  

 

Do not be fooled into thinking that the Cambrian only used its 0-6-0s for goods work, or that its goods work was only done by 0-6-0s.  

 

On the Coast Line there were 3 passenger trains each way, one goods and passenger each way, a goods and mail, and three goods trains.  The only way that the crews and engines would get home and avoid it being a lodging trip would be that a one goods engine would take a passenger train back and one passenger engine would take a goods train back.

 

There were no collieries in the Cambrian area, so coal movement was for domestic, or coal gas use, and of course brewing.

 

OK, that's helpful. 

 

The WNR approximately two thirds the route mileage, and there are some similarities I guess?

 

- Coastal destinations (commercial and resort)

 

- Predominantly rural economy

 

- Probably quite light in terms of industry

 

- No coalfield served by the system, so inward traffic as you say.

 

EDIT: Cambrian map (from Wiki):

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Edwardian
Picture

[Nearholmer]

28 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

The coal traffic from Wolfringham Staithe would therefore have been a major target for any proposed rail line in the area. 

I can’t remember what date we invented for the line to Wolfringham Staithe, but it was definitely quite early.
 

Incidentally, the real place that it was inspired by was already an established quay and coal import point by the C18th, and probably earlier, despite serving only a very thinly populated hinterland.