P.O. wagons - history

[Edwardian]

If it's RTR - assume it's wrong unless your own research proves it otherwise. There will be vastly more wrongs than rights. This is not limited to older toolings, e.g. Oxford Rail announced what looks like 1923 RCH 5-planks with some lovely coal-user liveries from the 1890s!  Both the model and the prototype for its livery will be 5-planks high and have 4 wheels.  There, unfortunately, the similarity ends.

 

Unless you are completely indifferent to accuracy, or only plan to view your layout from ten feet away, it's a problem. Sometimes, you'll be sold the right wagon in the right livery, but how will you know?!? 

 

Kits are not perfect, for instance, POW Sides often use the nearest equivalent kit for one of its pre-printed kits, but these are generally reasonable matches for the liveries, far more so than RTR wagons. I tend simply to accept them, but then, I don't have the books necessary to research individual wagons.

 

Slaters PO Kits seem to be coming available again in 4mm.  Cambrian Kits produces a complementary range, though differences between different builders tends to be confined to the bodies, the u/fs represent Gloucester's style. Of course, you have to find transfers or hand-paint these. 

 

Lettering these kits using individual letters from the HMRS transfer sheets is time consuming, but requires less skill than hand painting.  

[Pint of Adnams]

Ha! I see that the Gauge One-ers are just as guilty of slapping the right livery on the wrong wagon, or vice-versa!

 

Now here's another thing: once one starts delving into PO coal wagons, one starts to learn that different coal fields came on stream at different times, with some well-known examples such as South Yorkshire (at least the deep seams) not coming into production until the 20s. Then there's the vexed question of the infinite variety of coal and its uses - which coalfields (and seams withing those coalfields) produced the best steam coal, gas and coking coal, etc. You could write a book on it - I wish somebody would...

I too thoroughly recommend Anthony Watts' 'Ince Waggon Works' book for its breadth of coverage and details particularly useful for the modeller. However I would add to that Bill Hudson's 'Private Owner Wagons', Oakwood Press 1996 for general coverage together with his four volumes describing individual wagons, in which the introductory sections provide useful information. In particular that in volume three describes the coalfields of Britain in sufficient detail to answer basic questions on the different types of coal and their uses.

 

Keith Turton, author of the largest series of books on the subject, contributed an article on Gas Coal Traffic on the LNER for the LNER Study Group Journal, printed in issues 29 and 30 (2006) and subsequently separately as an Occasional Paper, now out of print. I wrote an Appendix to this Paper outlining the formation, sources, types and uses of coal and the mineral wagons it was transported in to provide context for the original article but it was never published. For those interested I attach a copy here - copyright retained by me. The bibliography referred to in the text lists the expanding series authored by Keith Turton and the volumes authored by Bill Hudson.

 

OP03 - Gas Coal Traffic - Appendices.pdf

[Compound2632]

If it's RTR - assume it's wrong unless your own research proves it otherwise. There will be vastly more wrongs than rights. This is not limited to older toolings, e.g. Oxford Rail announced what looks like 1923 RCH 5-planks with some lovely coal-user liveries from the 1890s!  Both the model and the prototype for its livery will be 5-planks high and have 4 wheels.  There, unfortunately, the similarity ends.

 

Unless you are completely indifferent to accuracy, or only plan to view your layout from ten feet away, it's a problem. Sometimes, you'll be sold the right wagon in the right livery, but how will you know?!? 

 

Kits are not perfect, for instance, POW Sides often use the nearest equivalent kit for one of its pre-printed kits, but these are generally reasonable matches for the liveries, far more so than RTR wagons. I tend simply to accept them, but then, I don't have the books necessary to research individual wagons.

 

Slaters PO Kits seem to be coming available again in 4mm.  Cambrian Kits produces a complementary range, though differences between different builders tends to be confined to the bodies, the u/fs represent Gloucester's style. Of course, you have to find transfers or hand-paint these. 

 

Lettering these kits using individual letters from the HMRS transfer sheets is time consuming, but requires less skill than hand painting.  

 

It's a question of the level of compromise one is willing to accept for one's own modelling. Sometimes that compromise has to come after the event, as when I discovered that the prototypes for a nice rake of Birch Coppice Colliery wagons I'd built were 16ft long with external diagonal strapping* not 15ft long with internal diagonal strapping per the Slaters/POWSides kits I was using. Thank you, Keith Turton (Sixth Collection). Unless your prototype is a 1923 RCH standard design [RTR: Bachmann, Oxford; kits: Parkside (absolutely superb), Slaters (middling), Cambrian (so-so)] or a product of the Gloucester Railway Carriage & Wagon Co. from roughly 1887 to 1907 [kits: Slaters (good), Cambrian (so-so)] or a couple of others, if you want accuracy one has to scratch-build. (This is all 4mm scale/00 which we've been taking it for granted is what the OP is talking about.)

 

Building a plastic wagon kit is an ideal way to start extending one's modelling beyond RTR. They're inexpensive, so it doesn't matter if there are a few hash jobs along the way - the person who never made a mistake never made anything - and the rewards become increasingly satisfying, even if the standard one aspires to turns out to be a moving goalpost as one does more research... I'd really recommend starting with one of the Parkside-from-Peco PO wagon kits - unlike some early Parkside kits, the mouldings are crisp and fit together perfectly - as I wrote above, absolutely superb.

 

I should point out again that while Slaters are gradually reintroducing their range of injection-moulded plastic kits, the ones relevant to this discussion are currently available through POWSides.

 

*Strapping - an enthusiast's term for the ironwork on the body of a wagon. It's a word that opens a whole nother can of worms...

[Andy Hayter]

Which is a prime example of what a minefield this is, even if you think you know your way through it. What Sandy's referring to are the specifications for mineral wagons issued by the RCH (Railway Clearing House) at intervals to try to set minimum standards for these wagons. Manufacturers don't seem to do even superficial research sometimes, which is how I have a wagon built to the 1923 RCH specification lettered for a colliery which closed in 1912. That's before you get into the nuances of what builder a particular colliery or merchant favoured and their stylistic quirks....

 

If you're really keen to learn, John Hayes' The 4mm Coal Wagon will teach you how to spot the detail differences even if you don't choose to use any of his modelling techniques.

 

And really just to add to the minefield, the RCH set their standards based on the best practice of the time - which means that some wagons will show some aspects of an RCH specification in the years before the specification became the standard.

 

For example the 1907 standard had a 6 plank wagon as the specification, the 1925 specification moved this to a 7 plank wagon, but one of Bill Hudson's books shows a 1912 wagon ex-builders with 7 planks.  Equally some wagons will have been built with steel underframes before the 1923 specification came about.  

 

So the RCH specifications set some markers for the minefield, but markers that can, in themselves, be misleading if applied rigidly.  Edwardian perhaps has it best explained: unless you  have proof otherwise, assume the model is wrong.

[MarcD]

I wouldn't say the subject was a mine field but there is a PhD in it for someone. If only I had the money/time. 

 

I was always taught to work from a primary source if that was available, ie a photograph and a GA if appropriate. RCH specs should be taken as guidance at best as there was no legal requirement for any builder to follow their lead and guidance is always  open to interpretation. 

 

When we write instructions for our kits we always state that you require a photo of the prototype that you want to build.

 

Additionally we try to put as many variations into the Ironwork/strapping as we can. We have a Great Eastern Rly 7 plank that can make over 180 different wagons from the one kit.  You can do that on a kit with a production run of 50 but its impossible to vary at all if you have to produce 50,000 RTR wagons as the big boys have to. They will put any livery on a that is about right and most people would be happy with that. 

 

it is horses for courses 

 

Marc

[corneliuslundie]

And when you have sorted out the "strapping" you can start on the "knees"!

I agree about using photos, but you have to know enough about the subject to know what you are looking at - to be able to tell an 1887 RCH spec wagon from one to the 1907 spec from one to the 1923 spec, for example.

And as was stated, the various specifications were based on best practice, and it appears that quite often ideas introduced by Charles Roberts ended up a few years later in the specs.

But the RCH, while produicing standard designs, was really interested mainly in getting reliable wagoins and easy wagon maintenance when away from home. You didn't want your wagon stopped for two weeks whil a special component was produced; you wanted the local branch of whichever repair company you used (later mostly Wagon Repairs) to be able to take an axlebox, coupling spring etc off the shelf.

And regarding an earlier question, I am afraid that even in post grouping days wagons didn't stay within the area covered by one company. After all, almost all coal for companies in the Southern Railway area had to come from somewhere else. And because different types of coal often (but not by any means always) came from different areas of the country it could end up anywhere that type of coal was in demand.

But also remember that many wagons never strayed far from a particular route, often from the colliery to a nearby port. This is particularly true of wagons based in South Wales other than those operated by anthracite collieries.

If you want a particular colliery's wagon to be legitimate on your layout one way is to create an imaginary industry which will have a contract with the relevant coilliery, either direct or via a coal factor. This also allows you to run wagons in the livery of the coal factor (a coal factor was a wholesale dealer, usually with commercial or indiustrial rather than domestic companies) as well.

But as always Rule 1 applies. It is your layout.

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

And when you have sorted out the "strapping" you can start on the "knees"!

I agree about using photos, but you have to know enough about the subject to know what you are looking at - to be able to tell an 1887 RCH spec wagon from one to the 1907 spec from one to the 1923 spec, for example.

 

I've gone weak at the knees looking at RCH 1887 wagons - things of proportion and beauty. The Ince book mentioned previously revealed that T.G. Clayton, the Midland's Carriage & Wagon Superintendant, has a big hand in drawing up the 1887 specification.

[Fat Controller]

ISTR a cobble is larger than a nut. Pea is smaller, mostly used on a chain grate.

 

Ian.

'cobbles' were about fist-sized. There were also 'beans', slightly larger than peas; these small ones were for use in hopper-fed boilers, like the Trianco my parents had. A lot of coal was delivered as mixed sizes, as it was too friable to guarantee particular sizes; before my parents had a 'boiler', we had open fires, and one of my jobs was to gather all the dust from the coalhouse, prior to the coalman bringing a new delivery- we used this to bank up the fire in the evening, to save having to relight it.

[corneliuslundie]

And don't forget Nutty Slack - the very small stuff. Often used in industrial boilers, power stations etc.

Jonathan

[VicZA]

All, these are great responses and provide a lot to read into and to look up. I have taken a few small steps to my understanding and knowledge of the subject: I have purchased: Bill Hudson's 'Private Owner Wagons' Volume 3. It;s very informative and a great reference.

 

Looking into the modelling side, it seems that the FOREST OF DEAN is both a historical and much loved area for modellers. Any links to modelling of this location in the 1900-1920 era? Think I may look at that as a first attempt.

 

Thanks everyone for all the feedback.

[Compound2632]

Looking into the modelling side, it seems that the FOREST OF DEAN is both a historical and much loved area for modellers. Any links to modelling of this location in the 1900-1920 era? Think I may look at that as a first attempt.

 

 

 

Try this one too. Many years ago I read the David & Charles volume on the Severn & Wye Railway - from what I can remember there were a myriad of twigs off branches serving some very small pits - some horese-worked and even laid with wooden rails, unless I'm romacing. The "main line" was joint Great Western and Midland, so there's considerable scope there. I think the Great Western looked after the locomotive side of things but the Midland was responsible for the signalling, among other things.

[Fenway Park]

Ian Pope’s book is excellent. It is well worth seeking out as it is out of print.

 

Some of the liveries lasted for only a few years in some instances, but there’s always Rule 1.

[VicZA]

Does anyone know what Locomotives would have been typically used for hauling coal in the collieries of the Forest of Dean? Also, would that fall under one of the big 4 groups or would they be something else?

[corneliuslundie]

In later years almost exclusively one class of GWR pannier tank - the 2021 class.** The Severn & Wye was originally independent (originally a tramroad) but then bought jointly by the GWR and MR. So you can have MR carriages hauled by GWR locos etc. The FoD branch was solely GWR.

Today I bought a new picture book on the FoD* - BR steam in Dean, with Ben Ashworth's photos. I have not looked at it yet but Ben's photos are usually superb.

Another very good photo survey is British Railway History in Colour. Volume 2. Forest of Dean lines and the Severn Bridge.by Neil Parkhouse.

There are or have been several volumes on the Forest lines in the Wild Swan catalogue - both the Severn & Wye part and the GWR branch. All recommended.

There is also a specialist FoD section on RMWeb: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/188-the-railways-of-gloucestershire-and-the-forest-of-dean/

Then there was the Forest of Dean Central Railway. Not one of he world's most successful lines, almost comparable with the Bishop's Castle railway.

You have probably realised by now that you have opened a very large can of worms! 

And bye the bye there is a very nice simulation of the Severn & Wye lines available for Microsoft Train Simulator.

Hooked yet?

Jonathan

* Just discovered that it is not new but a re print from 1999 which I never spotted at the time, and in fact reprinted last year- but still very good

** Once the 2021 class was scrapped it was a mix of ex-GWR pannier tanks. Ben Ashworth's book shows 1631, 5420, 1608, 4624, 3721, 3737, 8745, 9711, 8701 and 1605.

Edited September 12, 2018 by corneliuslundie

[The Bigbee Line]

I've gone weak at the knees looking at RCH 1887 wagons - things of proportion and beauty. The Ince book mentioned previously revealed that T.G. Clayton, the Midland's Carriage & Wagon Superintendant, has a big hand in drawing up the 1887 specification.

How long would an 1887 type wagon have lasted?  I ask because I think I have one from an ebay job lot..

 

It needs some TLC

 

[Guy Rixon]

How long would an 1887 type wagon have lasted?  I ask because I think I have one from an ebay job lot..

 

It needs some TLC

 

m IMG_28781.JPG

 

That looks like a 10-ton wagon, which was the commonest size built to the 1907 specifications. A more-typical wagon to the 1887 specification would load to 8 tons and have five planks in its sheeting; however, 10-ton and 12-ton wagons were also covered in the earlier specification.

 

The V-hangers for the brakes on the model suggest a Gloucester wagon, but the axleboxes don't match. The ribbed style of buffers are more typical of later wagons. IIRC the RCH standard buffer, with ribs, was introduced after the 1907 specifications and the variety with a lip to hold in the floor planks (at the door end) appeared in the 1923 specification.

 

It's worth noting that the RCH introduced standard designs for components and assemblies - e.g. self-contained buffers in 1906 and again in 1912 - separately from the standards for general arrangement of a wagon.

[The Bigbee Line]

That looks like a 10-ton wagon, which was the commonest size built to the 1907 specifications. A more-typical wagon to the 1887 specification would load to 8 tons and have five planks in its sheeting; however, 10-ton and 12-ton wagons were also covered in the earlier specification.

 

The V-hangers for the brakes on the model suggest a Gloucester wagon, but the axleboxes don't match. The ribbed style of buffers are more typical of later wagons. IIRC the RCH standard buffer, with ribs, was introduced after the 1907 specifications and the variety with a lip to hold in the floor planks (at the door end) appeared in the 1923 specification.

 

It's worth noting that the RCH introduced standard designs for components and assemblies - e.g. self-contained buffers in 1906 and again in 1912 - separately from the standards for general arrangement of a wagon.

Guy

 

Thanks for the information.  Would such a wagon have survived to Nationalisation?

 

Any guide is appreciated

 

Thanks

 

Ernie

[Norton961]

Just to add further confusion you get pre 1923 built wagons painted in post 1923 liveries! It’s a total minefield and if you don’t have a dated photo assume nothing.

 

David

[Andy Hayter]

Such  wagon could have survived to nationalisation - I stress could, because many did not.  Having gone through national use during the second world war, it would quite probably have been in poor condition and would have been replaced fairly quickly in the late 40s early 50s as raw materials for replacement allowed.  

[MarcD]

As a rule of thumb minerals wagons would on average last 40 years but this would be dependant on what it was used for. The Furness built some 2 plank slate wagons in 1895 and they were with drawn by BR in 1959. They were thinner that the standard wagons so they were the only wagons that could fit in to the loading dock at the slate quarry in Kirkby-in-Furness. After they were withdrawn they were sold to the iron works in barrow and they were finally scraped in 1981 when the works closed. The wagon might be like "Trigger's broom" by the time it was scrapped but they looked correct.

 

Marc

[Guy Rixon]

Guy

 

Thanks for the information.  Would such a wagon have survived to Nationalisation?

 

Any guide is appreciated

 

Thanks

 

Ernie

 

The likely building period for a 10T coal-merchant's wagon (it has no end door, so we should guess that it's not a coliery or factor's wagon) is from about 1900 to 1923. Before that, mainly 8T wagons; after that, the RCH wanted all mineral wagons to be 12T or larger and I'm not aware of generic 10T wagons being built. Given a working life of 40 years, the majority of the 10T wagons should have survived to 1948. I read somewhere that more 10T than 12T wagons were pooled in 1939.

 

However, the 40-year life assumes good, regular maintenance and the pooled wagons did not get that in wartime. I get the impression that the pooled wagons were used until they broke badly and then discarded. Clearly the older ones were more likely to end this way, and the low-capacity wagons might get less priority for repairs.

 

I think you could paint your wagon in a PO livery, weather it until the lettering is almost unreadable (faded rather than overlain with dirt), give it a P-prefix number and run it happily in a 1950s scene. There's an article in an old MRJ about the P-prefix numbering of nationalised, ex-pool, ex-PO wagons but I don't know the issue number. 

[The Bigbee Line]

I think you could paint your wagon in a PO livery, weather it until the lettering is almost unreadable (faded rather than overlain with dirt), give it a P-prefix number and run it happily in a 1950s scene. There's an article in an old MRJ about the P-prefix numbering of nationalised, ex-pool, ex-PO wagons but I don't know the issue number.

Guy

 

Thanks. In the new Larkin book he mentions that repair shops were allocated batches of numbers. Used as wagons were repaired. So I will assume a minor repair.

Just need to look out for pictures now.

[Compound2632]

That looks like a 10-ton wagon, which was the commonest size built to the 1907 specifications. A more-typical wagon to the 1887 specification would load to 8 tons and have five planks in its sheeting; however, 10-ton and 12-ton wagons were also covered in the earlier specification.

 

The V-hangers for the brakes on the model suggest a Gloucester wagon, but the axleboxes don't match. The ribbed style of buffers are more typical of later wagons. IIRC the RCH standard buffer, with ribs, was introduced after the 1907 specifications and the variety with a lip to hold in the floor planks (at the door end) appeared in the 1923 specification.

 

It's worth noting that the RCH introduced standard designs for components and assemblies - e.g. self-contained buffers in 1906 and again in 1912 - separately from the standards for general arrangement of a wagon.

 

I believe this wagon is built from the Slater's kit for a Gloucester 6-plank wagon; although this type pretty much conformed to the 1907 spec., Gloucester were building them for at least a decade before then. It has, in common with all Slater's Gloucester kits, the earlier type of round-bottomed (Attocks type) No. 4 axleboxes standard in the 1890s, rather than the later square-bottomed Gloucester 4S type. Gloucester was using ribbed buffer guides in the 1890s too, but was also using a plain pattern.

 

Gloucester and many other builders were turning out large quantities of 6 and 7-plank 10 ton wagons to the 1887 spec. for collieries, factors, and merchants. Some merchants preferred the 8 ton 5-plank wagons but my impression is there were fewer of these, even though the Midland Railway had standardised on 8 ton 5-plank wagons for mineral traffic.

 

So the question becomes, would a wagon built in the 1890s survive to nationalisation?

Edited January 14, 2019 by Compound2632

[bbishop]

I think 40 years could be an overstatement. It was a tough life, having 8 ton of nutty slack being dumped in you weekly(ish). I reckon a fair few were knackered after 20 years. Given that 1887 spec wagons were built until 1908 (there was an overlap) a number would survive until the late 1920s. At which time two factors intervened, Britain went into recession with a consequential tightening of capital spend, and houses were built without coal cellars. Collieries still wanted to lift coal, but had no means of storing it. One solution was to use superannuated wagons as mobile summer storage, making one annual circular trip. Then Hitler invaded Poland and the rest is history.

 

Bill

[Andy Hayter]

Some of these wagons were a lot tougher than you seem to think Bill

 

https://pregroupingrailways.com/wagons/

 

gives some specific examples - the first on the page are steel sided, but later on you will find wood bodied wagons from the turn of the last century lasting beyond nationalisation.  Search around and you will find other sites with examples of wagons lasting well beyond 40 years.  

 

The 30s recession and restrictions on capital spend would, counter to what I think you are suggesting, have probably lengthened the life of these wagons.  

1.  Their usage rate went down because of a reduction in demand for coal.

2.  Precisely because there was a tightening of capital spend, old wagons would be refurbished (revenue spend) to keep them in service.

 

WW2 however would have put a very heavy demand on wagons and repairs would have been for critical issues only.  

 

Of course not every wagon from the early era would have made it through to nationalisation.  Somewhere I feel sure however that I have read a statistic on pre-grouping wagons making it through to nationalisation.  I cannot now find it but I have in mind that LMS and LNER had something of the order of 40-50% of their wagons at nationalisation were built before grouping.  Railway companies and PO companies often used the same wagon builders and specifications, so I think the 40 year lifetime is a not unrealistic average-ish number.