Prototype ratio of locos:coaches:wagons

[TonyMay]

What was the prototypical ratio of locos:coaches:goods wagons historically, and how close to this ratio does any modeller actually get with the stock they own?

[Bucoops]

What period are you interested in? A hundred years ago there was a lot more wagons on inventory.

 

For example, at grouping the GER had:

 

just over 4000 coaches

approximately 25000 wagons

1343 locomotives

 

Info from GERS site (the first two are me interpreting a graph).

 

I would suspect that most people have too many locos - prototypical length trains aren't easy.

[Pete the Elaner]

4 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

 

I would suspect that most people have too many locos - prototypical length trains aren't easy.

Length of trains is 1 issue.

Buying locos seems to be more satisfying than a rake of coaches or a few wagons.

Wagons & coaches are more anonymous. Swapping the loco over usually makes it look like you have another train, especially when it is a named loco. Think of a roundy layout at a show: If Mallard does 3 laps, it looks just like that, but swap the loco for Bittern or Flying Scotsman & it looks like a different train, even if the coaches are the same.

[Aire Head]

The ratio will also depend massively on the location you are modelling aswell.

 

Modelling a London suburb and the majority of the traffic is going to be passenger related whereas a a secondary main line in Yorkshire is going to have a significantly higher proportion of goods traffic for example.

[eastglosmog]

Have a look here: https://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?146240-Keeping-The-Balance-1974-Articles-by-D-Rowland

for a summary of the analysis made by Don Rowland back in 1974 of the LMS in 1938.  Other railways were unlikely to have been vastly different.  I well remember the articles and still have them somewhere.

I doubt if many model railways have anywhere near like 71 wagons per locomotive.

[griffgriff]

There was a great deal of redundancy of stock history. There were lots of seasonal traffics that the railways were obliged to carry despite it being for a short period of the year. Sidings full of tourist coaches in winter only to be exchanged for coal wagons in summer etc.

[Compound2632]

7 hours ago, Aire Head said:

The ratio will also depend massively on the location you are modelling aswell.

 

Modelling a London suburb and the majority of the traffic is going to be passenger related whereas a a secondary main line in Yorkshire is going to have a significantly higher proportion of goods traffic for example.

 

There's also the issue of utilisation. For most of the steam era, the vast majority of wagons spent far less time on the move and much more slowly than passenger carriages - the same applying to goods engines and passenger engines. A country branch line might see one or even two sets of carriages going past the patient observer six or seven times a day, there might only be one or two goods trains in each direction.

 

[Pandora]

9 hours ago, Bucoops said:

What period are you interested in? A hundred years ago there was a lot more wagons on inventory.

 

For example, at grouping the GER had:

 

just over 4000 coaches

approximately 25000 wagons

1343 locomotives

 

Info from GERS site (the first two are me interpreting a graph).

 

I would suspect that most people have too many locos - prototypical length trains aren't easy.

The GE had 25000 wagons,  how many wagons on the line were PO wagons which would not show on the wagon registers but not on the GE inventory

Edited December 30, 2019 by Pandora

[Aire Head]

8 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

I doubt if many model railways have anywhere near like 71 wagons per locomotive.

 

I doubt if most model railways can manage anything like 71 wagon!

[Davexoc]

2 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

I doubt if most model railways can manage anything like 71 wagon!

 

I get to about 7.1 : 1 if you lump NPCCS in with the wagons....

[Aire Head]

14 minutes ago, Davexoc said:

 

I get to about 7.1 : 1 if you lump NPCCS in with the wagons....

 

I get to 13.25 just on wagons not including brakes and NPCCS but that's because I'm poor and can afford wagon kits but not new Locomotives 

 

Of course I do need to build something to use them on soon 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Pandora said:

The GE had 25000 wagons,  how many wagons on the line were PO wagons which would not show on the wagon registers but not on the GE inventory

 

At Grouping, the numbers were:

 

LMS 303,797, of which ex-Midland 123,429 (excluding share of joint line stock), ex-LNWR 81,642 (1919 figure), ex-LYR 37,585;

LNER 284,488, of which ex-NER 126,484;

GWR 87,432;

SR 36,121, of which ex-LSWR 15,303, ex-LBSR 10,764, ex-SECR 12,125;

Minor railways 7,917, of which CLC 4,510;

Private Owner 626,233 (at 1 Aug 1918).

 

Refs:

G. Bixley et al., Southern Wagons Vols. 1-3 (OPC, 1984, 1985, 2000)

N. Coates, Lancashire & Yorkshire Wagons Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 1990)

R.J. Essery, Midland Wagons Vol. 1 (OPC, 1980)

P. Tatlow, LNER Wagons Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 2005)

M. Williams et al., LNWR Wagons Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 2001)

 

[Aire Head]

20 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

At Grouping, the numbers were:

 

LMS 303,797, of which ex-Midland 123,429 (excluding share of joint line stock), ex-LNWR 81,642 (1919 figure), ex-LYR 37,585;

LNER 284,488, of which ex-NER 126,484;

GWR 87,432;

SR 36,121, of which ex-LSWR 15,303, ex-LBSR 10,764, ex-SECR 12,125;

Minor railways 7,917, of which CLC 4,510;

Private Owner 626,233 (at 1 Aug 1918).

 

Refs:

G. Bixley et al., Southern Wagons Vols. 1-3 (OPC, 1984, 1985, 2000)

N. Coates, Lancashire & Yorkshire Wagons Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 1990)

R.J. Essery, Midland Wagons Vol. 1 (OPC, 1980)

P. Tatlow, LNER Wagons Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 2005)

M. Williams et al., LNWR Wagons Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 2001)

 

 

It would be interesting to know what the numbers looked like at nationalisation.

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

It would be interesting to know what the numbers looked like at nationalisation.

 

Tatlow, op. cit., 31 Dec 1946:

 

LMS 293,448

LNER 244,954

GWR 87,944

SR 35,321

Minor 3,237

PO 600,702, of which 575,822 had been requisitioned.

[The Johnster]

I have 11 locos, 11 passenger coaches, 8 NPCCS vehicles, 36 gen. merch. goods, 22 mineral, and 4 goods brake vans to operate a South Wales 1950s BLT.  I am of course ridiculously over-supplied with locos, until you realise how many different classes and liveries would have been seen at my little terminus at the time, all from Tondu.  I am short of passenger vehicles of sufficient variety to run the service, pending a purchase and construction program of Comet kits., and have two mineral trains, one loaded and one empty, 11 and a van being the capacity of my two longest fiddle yard roads.  I am reasonably well supplied with NPCCS and general merchandise goods vehicles, but there are still some types on the shopping list.

 

Locos break down as follows; 3 x 56xx, 3x 8750, 2x 57xx, one each 2721, 42xx, 45xx, 4575, and 94xx.  I need another 4575 to handle the auto traffic.  This number of locos has been determined by the requirements of the timetable and the need to remove locos from traffic every 10 working days for 2 days boiler washout.  All locos can deputise for each other on all duties except auto, except that one of the 8750s is 6762 and has no vacuum brakes, hence cannot do passenger or NPCCS work, and 64xx are sadly too late for my period at Tondu.

 

Looked at in this sense 11 locos are barely enough to work the timetable and cover washouts.  I can rationally further withdraw locos for periods to simulate works visits if I need to justify any more!

 

 

[kevinlms]

14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

At Grouping, the numbers were:

 

LMS 303,797, of which ex-Midland 123,429 (excluding share of joint line stock), ex-LNWR 81,642 (1919 figure), ex-LYR 37,585;

 

 

Don't forget that many of these wagons were life expired and the LMS built many 1000s of new wagons as replacements by the end of the 1920s.The LMS built (in their own workshops or by the trade) nearly 25,000 Diagram 1666 12 Ton 9ft wheelbase wooden open wagons, basically to RCH standards, between 1923 & 1927.

Also about 2400 steel underframe equivalents D1667.

 

So vast fleets of pre-grouping wagons would have been scrapped, as no longer needed.

 

So it depends on what period your modelling, as to what your wagon fleet, ought to consist of.

[Compound2632]

58 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Don't forget that many of these wagons were life expired and the LMS built many 1000s of new wagons as replacements by the end of the 1920s.The LMS built (in their own workshops or by the trade) nearly 25,000 Diagram 1666 12 Ton 9ft wheelbase wooden open wagons, basically to RCH standards, between 1923 & 1927.

Also about 2400 steel underframe equivalents D1667.

 

So vast fleets of pre-grouping wagons would have been scrapped, as no longer needed.

 

So it depends on what period your modelling, as to what your wagon fleet, ought to consist of.

 

Yes, indeed, at the grouping, all the LMS's wagon fleet was by necessity of pre-Grouping origin but by nationalisation, only a small proportion was. For example, I've never seen any evidence that any of the Midland's 62,000 D299 8 ton 5-plank open wagons built 1882-1902 survived until nationalisation - in fact I think withdrawals of the oldest-built started c. 1912 - while, as you say, the LMS built an equivalent number of 12 ton replacements in the first seven years of its existence. It wasn't that the pre-grouping wagons were "not needed" so much as that they were life-expired and required replacement. 

 

However, as Tatlow reports, the total numbers of wagons of the grouping companies didn't change much throughout the quarter-century. The point of my post was simply to show the number of PO wagons compared to company-owned wagons.

[IWCR]

The huge number of wagons was in part due to their use.  Just looking at my own area with the known traffic and the known number of wagons gives an average round trip of over 2 weeks for each wagon from loading, delivery/emptying and back to loading point, and this is in a small geographical area.  On delivery likely emptying is by hand and may take 2 or 3 days.  However an unfitted wagon is very basic and they were cheap, build costs in the 20's are shown as little as £40 (this may reflect use of second hand wheelsets)  Wholesale renewal with new was often cheaper than patching and repairing the old.

 

Pete

[MidlandRed]

On 30 December 2019 at 17:28, Compound2632 said:

 

There's also the issue of utilisation. For most of the steam era, the vast majority of wagons spent far less time on the move and much more slowly than passenger carriages - the same applying to goods engines and passenger engines. A country branch line might see one or even two sets of carriages going past the patient observer six or seven times a day, there might only be one or two goods trains in each direction.

 

 

Goods vehicle utilisation is an interesting matter - I recall an article about goods yards and sidings around Burton on Trent where large quantities of wagons were parked - it was suggested utilisation (in moving trains) was very low, and some formed a useful means of storing materials (there was an estimate of the number - which I can't remember but ran to 1000s!). My own observation in the 60s suggested many private sidings had rakes of goods vehicles, which seldom and in some cases never moved until cleared out for rail removal. 

 

All that taken into account, along with a snapshot in time, say of the contents of the biggest yards, and carriage sidings (with seasonal trains stored), which would also skew the ratios, it's unlikely a model railway is ever going to approach the prototype stock ratios - which may also vary significantly by area anyway - I think it is likely there would be a higher proportion of locos on a model layout, not only for variety of operation but many of us possibly have a leaning towards locos or power units rather than unpowered!! And where would you store all the stock anyway! 

Edited December 31, 2019 by MidlandRed

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

 

Goods vehicle utilisation is an interesting matter - I recall an article about goods yards and sidings around Burton on Trent where large quantities of wagons were parked - it was suggested utilisation (in moving trains) was very low, and some formed a useful means of storing materials (there was an estimate of the number - which I can't remember but ran to 1000s!). My own observation in the 60s suggested many private sidings had rakes of goods vehicles, which seldom and in some cases never moved until cleared out for rail removal. 

 

Demurrage charges and siding rental have to be taken into account. A colliery company's wagon standing full of coal on the colliery's own sidings isn't costing the company anything more than depreciation - though too many of them and there's nowhere to put further production, especially in the South Wales valleys. The same wagon delivering to a coal merchant at a wayside station is attracting siding rent so will want to be unloaded and returned empty as quickly as is reasonably possible. A railway company wagon will likewise want to be cleared quickly as there's the additional burden of demurrage - this was a bigger issue before the pooling arrangements introduced around the time of the Great War as one company's wagon delivering to another company's station would need to be returned (empty) to its home company, again to avoid such charges. Not just wagons, but wagon sheets and ropes.

[Pandora]

Reading around the subject of the PO coal wagon, the manufacture of a typical wagon to RCH specification was so well established a wagon could be constructed by a couple of men in 3 and a half days, the value of the wagon would be around £100 and have a life of 30 years,  historical depreciation would be about £3 a year or a penny per day , collieries would own fleets of wagons matched to coal demand in summer months ( low demand for coal) and hire in or lease additional wagons from the many wagon companies in winter, loading coal directly into the wagon at the coal screening shed minimised further manual handling of the load  and the coal was ready for rapid despatch as required.   To my mind  this explains why the collieries used sidings and wagons as coal storage  and did not store coal in fixed permanent  bunkers at the colliery

Edited December 31, 2019 by Pandora

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Pandora said:

why the collieries used wagons as coal storage as well as transport and did not store coal in fixed permanent  bunkers at the colliery

... also avoiding double handling.

 

Collieries (also coal factors and coal merchants) could own their wagons outright (oval "owner" plate on the solebar) or have them on lease from one of the wagon companies, usually with a maintenance and repair contract - typically seven years, with a re-paint at half-term (at least in the pre-Great War era). So PO wagons would, on average, present a smarter appearance than railway company wagons, which were usually on a rather longer re-painting cycle.

[The Johnster]

Some PO wagons, especially those belonging to small scale traders who only had a small number hired from wagon factors but painted in their livery, were very well looked after and always presented a smart appearance as a matter of pride and, of course, as advertising.  Bright liveries were common among such owners, whereas larger fleets tended to be black, dark brown, dark grey liveries and were usually pretty mucky.  Once pooling was introduced, everything got as filthy as you'd expect from vehicles that spent their lives in that environment pretty quickly!

[JohnR]

On 31/12/2019 at 01:57, The Johnster said:

I have 11 locos, 11 passenger coaches, 8 NPCCS vehicles, 36 gen. merch. goods, 22 mineral, and 4 goods brake vans to operate a South Wales 1950s BLT.  I am of course ridiculously over-supplied with locos, until you realise how many different classes and liveries would have been seen at my little terminus at the time, all from Tondu.  I am short of passenger vehicles of sufficient variety to run the service, pending a purchase and construction program of Comet kits., and have two mineral trains, one loaded and one empty, 11 and a van being the capacity of my two longest fiddle yard roads.  I am reasonably well supplied with NPCCS and general merchandise goods vehicles, but there are still some types on the shopping list.

 

Locos break down as follows; 3 x 56xx, 3x 8750, 2x 57xx, one each 2721, 42xx, 45xx, 4575, and 94xx.  I need another 4575 to handle the auto traffic.  This number of locos has been determined by the requirements of the timetable and the need to remove locos from traffic every 10 working days for 2 days boiler washout.  All locos can deputise for each other on all duties except auto, except that one of the 8750s is 6762 and has no vacuum brakes, hence cannot do passenger or NPCCS work, and 64xx are sadly too late for my period at Tondu.

 

Looked at in this sense 11 locos are barely enough to work the timetable and cover washouts.  I can rationally further withdraw locos for periods to simulate works visits if I need to justify any more!

 

 

 

Thats very similar to my own rationale. A summer Saturday on the East Devon branchline would have seen 9 different tank engine diagrams. Include some of the other engines that might have been seen, because they were allocated to 72A, means I can justify having a dozen or more tank engines. For a relatively simple branch line terminus.

 

And while I am trying to have approriate rakes of coaching stock, I am a little happier at having just 1 or 2 of each of the types of coach sets likely to be seen, rather than having to have the exact number of individual sets the traffic working notices imply.  Likewise for wagons.

 

I think its partly because engines are much more unique, especially as their running numbers are more visible than, say, a coach or wagon number.

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, JohnR said:

I think its partly because engines are much more unique, especially as their running numbers are more visible than, say, a coach or wagon number.

 

You say...