"Foreign" wagons - How many would you see?

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Another random thought: might these beer-filled wagons make more than one call? Drop in at SP on Tuesday, move on to Barcombe on Wednesday, get to Lewes on Thursday and return with the empties from there on a fast goods to Norwood followed by a trip round to Brent?

 Would you leave barrels of beer standing overnight in an open wagon?

[Nearholmer]

Good question. The degree of security provided to goods seemed to vary a lot - I know there was an issue with tapping of spirit barrels, and in a few places coal had to be kept in locked sheds.

 

Going on what we’ve surmised so far, everyone around was probably too sozzled to make it as far as the goods yard to steal beer!

 

Which reminds me of a song my father and uncles used to sing, although whether it was traditional or made-up by them I know not:

 

There was an ole man named sozzlin’ Jack,

Lived in the bole of a tree,

And every night when he went out

He came ‘ome too merry.

 

Now the barmaid of the Puddlin’ Duck

Fetched-up with Sozzlin’ Jack

And every night the used to meet

Behind the ole haystack.

 

Until one night his wife

She cotched en there

An fetched ‘en such a whack  
It blew his smock and trousers off

And now he wears a sack ......

 

(it goes on, a lot)

Edited October 28, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Nick Holliday]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

 

But, as I said in the other thread, I suspect that what was coming from Kent, and maybe Kemp Town too, wasn't barrels but specialist bottled beers in crates.

 

For instance, I know that Fremlin's of Maidstone had good penetration into the market in East Sussex for things like bottled IPA, stout etc, and having done a bit googling it seems that they supplied in stone jars (gallon?) as well as bottles. I'm wondering if the trade was to general stores and direct to private homes rather than through pubs.

Slightly out of period, but illuminating, are some further notes from Klaus Marx's book. Lord Sheffield had frittered away his family fortune on lavish projects and entertainments, which no doubt had benefited the LBSC, but he died in 1909, and the estate was bought by the principal mortgagee, Arthur Gilstrap Soames, in 1910.  He was a brewer from Lincolnshire, and following his acquisition, an 18-gallon barrel of beer arrived at regular intervals at the station, and was only called up when its predecessor was empty.

Perhaps an excuse for a GNR van?

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Nick Holliday said:

Slightly out of period, but illuminating, are some further notes from Klaus Marx's book. Lord Sheffield had frittered away his family fortune on lavish projects and entertainments, which no doubt had benefited the LBSC, but he died in 1909, and the estate was bought by the principal mortgagee, Arthur Gilstrap Soames, in 1910.  He was a brewer from Lincolnshire, and following his acquisition, an 18-gallon barrel of beer arrived at regular intervals at the station, and was only called up when its predecessor was empty.

Perhaps an excuse for a GNR van?

 

That's small beer, or at least a small beer barrel - half the standard size. So perhaps that is on the scale that might be transhipped to a "road van" or even be sent by passenger train?

 

I was just looking up old Soames there - a regular case of kick one and they all limp, from Churchill to Baden-Powell.

[Nick Holliday]

In one of the parallel threads, @Compound2632 wondered if there might be some formula or algorithm to predict the diffusion of wagons post-common-user.  Noting @Regularity's valid comment that the available evidence is too limited to make generalisations, it is all we currently have to go on, until more data crawls out of the woodwork. Just as an exercise to see whether there might be any correlation between wagon numbers and the distance from the relevant railhead, I applied a simple computation, in which I calculated the ration of the wagons recorded compared with the total number of wagons each company owned, and then plotted them against the distance to the nearest point of transfer, from company metals. I was pleasantly surprised to see that there was a pattern emerging, and I have sketched two curves as crude lines of best fit.  The results for Bristol are in blue, and I believe provide a good indicator that might have further application.  The LNWR figure, in orange, are slightly different and less convincing, although I would suggest that there are two factors impacting on the results. One is that the wagons entering into the shed are only those with part loads, and it would seem reasonable to expect a similar number of full loads to pass through Crewe, but not being counted. Hence the curve is approximately half the value of the Bristol curve.  The other point is that there are a number of points which are well below the anticipated curve, all around the 30-50 mile distance, and these all represent the nearby competition, Midland, Great Central and Great Northern. Since their networks cover a similar area to the LNWR, and they all have their own routes to London and the rest of the Midlands, it is totally understandable that they would only send a minimal amount of traffic to their closest rivals.

I enclose the figures, for those who might care.

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Nick Holliday

[Andy W]

One minor point - the Crewe Tranship Shed data comes from December 1922 and so reflects the final pre-grouping position, except that the LNWR and L&YR had already amalgamated, at the start of 1922, taking the LNWR name. It is reasonable to assume that a greater than previous degree of wagon pooling between the original LNW and L&Y had already started, it would be an easy quick win for the new (mostly ex L&Y) management. What I don't know is whether the figures reflect all new wagons delivered to the merged company as LNWR or there was still some split based on whose design was used, and whether wagons repainted into LNWR livery but coming from the L&Y side appear as LNWR or L&YR in the Tranship Shed data. Maybe the two sets of figures should be taken together in assessing percentages of "home team" wagons passing through the shed?

[bbishop]

On 27/10/2020 at 22:00, Andy Hayter said:

Edwardian

The 1:5 van to open wagon number is probably not far off for those companies with an indigenous coal or other mineral supply within their network - indeed 1:6 might be closer.  However the HMRS did an analysis of a few companies and the GER and LBSCR had a ratio of around 1:3.5.  LSWR was around 1:5 with its access to several mineral producers.  [HMRS Journal January 1992]  

 

Regarding a significant number of empties being returned, it clearly depends on which route and from where.  There would likely be a major return of empties from big cities back to the wagons home territory, but on more minor lines there may be very few indeed.  Also to be clear the empties are returned directly back to their owner.   You will not find empty SECR wagons on a Bristol - Midlands train.

 

Regarding the southern companies, Mike King et al included a breakdown of wagon types as at 1923 in their books.  The following are percentages:

LSWR - open 60; covered 15; fitted covered 4 - so open : covered = 4 : 1 (but 3 :  1 including fitted)

SECR - open 60; covered 11; mineral 16 - so open : covered = 5.5 : 1

LBSC - open 74; covered 5; mineral 2 - so open : covered = 15 : 1

 

The LSWR didn't own any mineral wagons, they had a small number of stone wagons for the Portland stone traffic which didn't amount to ¼% of stock.

The SECR mineral wagons were for the Kent coalfield traffic.

I asked Mike King at a South Western Circle meeting about the LSWR having a higher percentage of fitted wagons.  I received a two word answer "Southampton Docks".  

Bill

 

[bbishop]

If i can comment on  Nick's BRISTOL analysis, the common user inclusions were extended in June 1919.  The main exclusions were mineral wagons (*) and fitted covered wagons.  Wearing my LSWR hat, 4% of that company's stock comprised refrigerator, banana and meat vans which would have almost exclusively travelled between Southampton Docks and Nine Elms.  A similar argument might justify the considerable number of vans belonging to a certain company at Bristol.

Wagons from some companies were not necessarily treated as common user.  These were the companies that did not adopt RCH standards, one example being the LBSC (%) that adopted a non standard axle length.  So a knowledgeable yard master would aim to return that company's wagons towards Lancing rather than Thurso.

(*) as the definition was a wagon with a through top plank or fixed sides, how was a wagon with a "London" plank treated?  Or am I being pe(n)dantic?

(%) one reason why the Southern Railway packed off many LBSC wagons to the Isle of Wight.

 

Bill

 

[Compound2632]

11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

(it goes on, a lot)

 

More!

[bbishop]

In last night's blether, written about midnight, I managed to confuse a London plank with a lifting plank.  Apologies.  Bill

[Compound2632]

Just now, bbishop said:

In last night's blether, written about midnight, I managed to confuse a London plank with a lifting plank.  Apologies.  Bill

 

I understood what you meant - anyway I thought they were synonymous. I understood that there was objection from London coal merchants (or their employees) to wagons with a through top plank (or two), as from a fully loaded wagon they had to shovel over the side rather than through the door. But I don't think I have a reference for that, so would welcome clarification from an authoritative source. Tavender goes off into a digression on these in his page on Midland mineral wagon construction [Coal Trade Wagons N560] but makes the point that the total number of wagons with the lifting plank was a very small fraction of the total - no more than 2% at peak.

 

Moreover in 1919 there were still plenty of 8 ton mineral wagons around with no through top plank, so that definition of mineral wagons sounds rather odd.

[Nick Holliday]

15 hours ago, Andy W said:

One minor point - the Crewe Tranship Shed data comes from December 1922 and so reflects the final pre-grouping position, except that the LNWR and L&YR had already amalgamated, at the start of 1922, taking the LNWR name. It is reasonable to assume that a greater than previous degree of wagon pooling between the original LNW and L&Y had already started, it would be an easy quick win for the new (mostly ex L&Y) management. What I don't know is whether the figures reflect all new wagons delivered to the merged company as LNWR or there was still some split based on whose design was used, and whether wagons repainted into LNWR livery but coming from the L&Y side appear as LNWR or L&YR in the Tranship Shed data. Maybe the two sets of figures should be taken together in assessing percentages of "home team" wagons passing through the shed?

The table I took the figures from clearly separated ex-L&YR stock from LNWR.  I don't know their criteria, but I'm sure the wagon checkers at Crewe were thoroughly familiar with their charges. I kept them separate to see if they fitted my imposed calculations - everything is completely speculative, and with, currently, only two viable sources, will probably remain so!  Perhaps it will provide a basis for further considerations, by others.

[bbishop]

36 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I understood what you meant - anyway I thought they were synonymous. I understood that there was objection from London coal merchants (or their employees) to wagons with a through top plank (or two), as from a fully loaded wagon they had to shovel over the side rather than through the door. But I don't think I have a reference for that, so would welcome clarification from an authoritative source. Tavender goes off into a digression on these in his page on Midland mineral wagon construction [Coal Trade Wagons N560] but makes the point that the total number of wagons with the lifting plank was a very small fraction of the total - no more than 2% at peak.

 

Moreover in 1919 there were still plenty of 8 ton mineral wagons around with no through top plank, so that definition of mineral wagons sounds rather odd.

 

Lifted from page 24 of British Goods Wagons by Essery et al.  Bill

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

but makes the point that the total number of wagons with the lifting plank was a very small fraction of the total - no more than 2% at peak.

No surprise really, because surely it defeats the purpose of having a continuous top plank, which is to prevent the sides bowing-out under load.

 

The SR much later built dual-purpose wagons, possibly based on an SECR or continental design, and they used top cupboard doors with oodles of reinforcing metalwork for this reason.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Nearholmer

[CKPR]

19 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

In one of the parallel threads, @Compound2632 wondered if there might be some formula or algorithm to predict the diffusion of wagons post-common-user.  Noting @Regularity's valid comment that the available evidence is too limited to make generalisations, it is all we currently have to go on, until more data crawls out of the woodwork. Just as an exercise to see whether there might be any correlation between wagon numbers and the distance from the relevant railhead, I applied a simple computation, in which I calculated the ration of the wagons recorded compared with the total number of wagons each company owned, and then plotted them against the distance to the nearest point of transfer, from company metals. I was pleasantly surprised to see that there was a pattern emerging, and I have sketched two curves as crude lines of best fit.  The results for Bristol are in blue, and I believe provide a good indicator that might have further application.  The LNWR figure, in orange, are slightly different and less convincing, although I would suggest that there are two factors impacting on the results. One is that the wagons entering into the shed are only those with part loads, and it would seem reasonable to expect a similar number of full loads to pass through Crewe, but not being counted. Hence the curve is approximately half the value of the Bristol curve.  The other point is that there are a number of points which are well below the anticipated curve, all around the 30-50 mile distance, and these all represent the nearby competition, Midland, Great Central and Great Northern. Since their networks cover a similar area to the LNWR, and they all have their own routes to London and the rest of the Midlands, it is totally understandable that they would only send a minimal amount of traffic to their closest rivals.

I enclose the figures, for those who might care.

 

 

This is really interesting and my initial reading of this analysis is that the probability of  specific 'foreign' wagons being present on any given line might be related in part  to the average [median/ modal] journey of goods carried in railway-owned wagons in pre-grouping times. Conversely, and I know single cases don't prove much,  a post-WW1 photograph of an M&CR passenger train leaving Carlisle clearly shows an LBSC  van in the background and I've always wondered what traffic was being conveyed so far North.

 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, bbishop said:

 

Lifted from page 24 of British Goods Wagons by Essery et al.  Bill

 

Indeed, Tavender is a great synthesizer of his sources.

 

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

No surprise really, because surely it defeats the purpose of having a continuous top plank, which is to prevent the sides bowing-out under load.

 

The SR much later built dual-purpose wagons, possibly based on an SECR or continental design, and they used top cupboard doors with oodles of reinforcing metalwork for this reason.

 

I'm not so sure about that. The side sheeting is not really structural; it's the side knees that are and need to be sufficiently strong to avoid bending outwards. An 8 ton wagon, no more the 3'0" deep, could have a full height door (though many did not) but on a 10 ton or 12 ton wagon, 3'8" to 4'0" deep, a full height drop door would be embarrassingly long and heavy, reaching nearly to rail level if dropped righ down or sticking too far out onto the loading dock if horizontal. The SECR design, like the rather similar Great Western diagram O2, was a merchandise wagon rather than a mineral wagon. These had a drop door 4 planks high, with cupboard doors 3 planks high and with just enough ironwork - a pair of hinges meeting in a V - to hold them together.

 

  

4 minutes ago, CKPR said:

Conversely, and I know single cases don't prove much,  a post-WW1 photograph of an M&CR passenger train leaving Carlisle clearly shows an LBSC  van in the background and I've always wondered what traffic was being conveyed so far North.

 

But remember that, with pooling, that van may have been unloaded and reloaded several times before reaching Carlisle - there's no evidence its current load originated south of the Thames. The post-war, spankingly modern-looking, SECR wagons seem to turn up in the most unlikely places in the post-war / early grouping period. Their modernity may have made them the first choice when looking for an empty wagon to load!

Edited October 29, 2020 by Compound2632

[CKPR]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

But remember that, with pooling, that van may have been unloaded and reloaded several times before reaching Carlisle - there's no evidence its current load originated south of the Thames. The post-war, spankingly modern-looking, SECR wagons seem to turn up in the most unlikely places in the post-war / early grouping period. Their modernity may have made them the first choice when looking for an empty wagon to load!

Good point - it makes  me think that a study of specific documentation, including any surviving wagon dockets, might give a more accurate indication of wagon utilisation.

[bbishop]

A quick history of "three door" wagons.

The LSWR introduced their 8 plank wagons in 1904, initially tared at 15 ton, problems with bowing saw the tare reduced to 12 ton:  length 18', height 4' 8", wheelbase 10' 6".

The similar SECR design appeared in 1919 with seven planks and to 12 ton: length 17', height 4', wheelbase 9' 6".

Both designs continued after grouping until the SR brought out an RCH design with eight planks: length 17' 6", height 4' 8"(?), wheelbase 9'.  

 

The thinking would have been a higher capacity goods wagon, but one man could not lift a door with a height greater than three foot.  Hence the two cupboard doors.  These wagons were not designed for mineral traffic.  I recollect seeing a photograph with a coal load, but it was taken either in WW2 or the 1947 coal shortage.  

 

Of course, it took the genius of Bulleid to design a five plank drop side wagon: two men could not lift a door!

 

Bill

[MrWolf]

Would the fact that better / newer wagons were likely to be bounced from one job to another and not be available to the owners be the reason for the "Return to xxxx Not common user" branding on certain GWR wagons?

[Compound2632]

Just now, MrWolf said:

Would the fact that better / newer wagons were likely to be bounced from one job to another and not be available to the owners be the reason for the "Return to xxxx Not common user" branding on certain GWR wagons?

 

Yes, in the sense that these were wagons that were not part of the pooling scheme. This marking (and its equivalent on other companies' wagons) was used to indicate such wagons, which were generally specialized types, including vaccum-braked wagons - of which the Great Western had a higher proportion than did the LMS or LNER, I believe.

 

Tatlow gives the proportion of each group's wagons in the pool at grouping:

 

               total        pooled (approx)      

LMS     303,797    217,000       71%

LNER   284,488    170,000       60%

GWR      87,432      65,000       75%

SR          35,121      29,000       82%

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

 

At first sight, this gives the lie to the Great Western's reluctance to pool. I think the LNER's low figure can be accounted for by the large number of ex-NER hopper wagons dedicated to pit-to-staithe coal traffic - and correspondingly the low number of PO wagons in the north east; the Southern percentage is high since that company did not have so many special wagons, as it did not serve any major manufacturing areas.

 

[Compound2632]

The Sheffield Park data would make one suppose that foreign wagons were a rarity on the Brighton - no more than 10%. But context is everything. Look elsewhere, and the picture is different. Let our scene shift from rural Sussex in the winter of 1899-1900 to the southern outskirts of the teeming metropolis the following summer: West Norwood, late in the evening of 7 July, a fine and clear night. Picture to yourself a Billinton E3 0-6-2T (probably) at the head of 31 wagons and a brake van, departed from Battersea at 9:20pm, creeping towards Norwood Junction under adverse signals. With a rattle and a clang the West Norwood Station down distant drops; driver Alfred Nicholas heaves open the regulator, the couplings take up the slack... all except one, on Midland covered goods wagon No. 7459 , which is nit equal to the strain. The rear 19 wagons and van roll so gently to a stand that guard Benjamin Tinsley does not notice anything amiss. Nicholas feels a snatch and suspects the train has parted; he draws up past West Norwood Junction signal box, sending his fireman back to look for the rest of the train.

 

Alas, signalman Charles Waters assumes the whole train had passed and accepts the 9:55pm Victoria to West Croydon passenger train, headed by another Billinton radial tank, E4 No. 492. As he has not had "line clear" from the box in advance, he keeps his home and distant at danger. Driver William Kitchingman has time to make a full application of the Westinghouse brake as soon as he sees the tail lamp of the stationary brake van, nevertheless his train is still travelling at 6 or 7 mph when it strikes the break-away portion of the goods train. Many passengers complain of injury, though fortunately none seriously. Callously, we're going to be more interested in the damaged goods wagons, which Lt. Col. von Donop conveniently lists in his report to the Board of Trade.

 

LBSCR goods brake No. 190 was completely broken up (guard Tinsley had heard the approaching passenger train and had time to scramble out of of the van, though he was injured and evidently in shock). The other damaged wagons were four LBSCR - three Open As and an Open D - and two Midland opens, almost certainly the standard 5-plank D299. It is also recorded that the Midland coupling that broke was between that Midland van and another LBSCR open. That's eight out of 31 wagons accounted for - only 26% but with a foreign-to-home ratio of 3:5 - i.e. 38% foreign (and all Midland). Small sample, yes, but still a significant proportion of foreign wagons working through from the north, no doubt to be sorted out at Norwood Junction to go maybe singly to wayside stations in the deep south.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Compound2632

[Nearholmer]

Norwood Junction was a marshalling yard, and certainly latterly its key role was to receive goods from the north, then re-distribute it by through goods trains to nodal yards across the LBSCR, and by "pick up" goods trains to stations within its compass, which extended across the inner suburbs and quite a distance in the country direction - Tunbridge Wells West was possibly the end of its longest tentacle.

 

Would be interesting to understand how traffic from the lines north of the river was dealt with in the early 1900s. Certainly later there were direct services to Norwood junction from Brent, Willesden, and Acton, and I've always supposed (lazily, based on no evidence) that that was always the case.

 

So, my surmise is that the MR wagons in this train had come from Brent to Norwood, gone by local goods train to Battersea, and were probably in the course of retracing their wheel-tracks empty. But, if the flow was different at this early date, what we might be looking at is a "cut" of wagons that had gone Brent-Battersea-Norwood on their way south, possibly Brent-Acton-Battersea-Norwood, because the GWR ran direct to the Battersea area at South Lambeth.

 

(The MR had a coal depot near Battersea too, but in another thread we thrashed the detail of the routes that the MR coal trains followed - they were direct services, hauled by MR locos IIRC)

 

 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

I had assumed that the Midland wagons had been worked by Midland goods train from Brent to Battersea Wharf via Acton Wells, Bentford Road Junction, and the LSWR to Lavender Hill Junction, this being the route taken by the coal trains to Wandsworth Road - the map I referred to in that discussion marks the various routes as "route taken by MR goods and coal trains". Midland wagons for LBSC destinations would be remarshalled into trains such as the one in the accident for transfer to Norwood Junction, along with traffic originating at the LBSC goods station at Battersea, there to be re-marshalled into goods trains to their next sorting points or even final destinations. 

Edited October 30, 2020 by Compound2632

[burgundy]

It would be interesting to check the working timetables, but my understanding is that much of the freight transferred onto the Brighton was handed over at Lilley Bridge on the West London line. Other than for the "foreign" coal depots around South London, through working was introduced as a result of traffic levels in the First World War. Coal trains for the south coast were scheduled from Lillie Bridge in the small hours and the main line south must have had a procession of coal trains trundling down before the morning rush.

This simple graph of the company's total numbers of goods locos illustrates the impact of the opening of the West London line in 1863.

 

Best wishes 

Eric 

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by burgundy

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I have it at the back of my mind that Norwood Yard might have been quite a modest affair at the date we are discussing, so what you say makes sense.

 

If I hadn’t disposed of Mr Howard-Turner’s tomes I could check - does anyone have them to hand?