Wagons Nos. 55001-55512 particularly No. 55269

[Compound2632]

The number range 54001-56000 is largely occupied by standard 4-plank open wagons. Of these, the 200 of Lot 34 (c. 1894) were numbered 54811-55000 and 55513-55522. Despite scouring Atkins (3rd edition, 1998), I have been unable to identify the 512 wagons numbered in the missing block 55001-55512. This is frustrating, since in the collection of the Midland Railway Study Centre, there is a wagon label dated 1 Feb 1924 for a load from Grimethorpe Colliery to J. Gibson, Keswick, in wagon number 55269, apparently endorsed GW [MRSC Item 14630]. The use of a Great Western wagon for this traffic at this period would raise no eyebrows were it not for the general rarity of mineral wagons in the Great Western fleet. 

 

Anyway, does anyone have information on wagons in this number range?

Edited November 4, 2020 by Compound2632
Added specific wagon of interest in topic title.

[corneliuslundie]

Not the ones you are looking for but earlier in the 5xxxx series are the 15 ton ex Cambrian loco coal wagons. Could these be something similar (though not from the TVR or RR as I have checked)?

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Not the ones you are looking for but earlier in the 5xxxx series are the 15 ton ex Cambrian loco coal wagons.

 

The series 49001-51300 and 52001-53000 are more 4-plank opens and the series 53001-54000 is mostly wagons of various N diagrams (loco coal), with 122 scattered numbers unaccounted for in my list. I assume there weren't enough ex-Cambrian loco coal wagons to account for the 700 numbers 51301-52000, so I infer they were in the 53xxx series? I can imagine the ex-Cambrian wagons taking numbers of withdrawn loco coal wagons but my difficulty is in accounting for large blocks of unallocated numbers. 

 

Great Western wagon numbering is in blocks for capital additions but largely arranged by type, so not allocated chronologically. Thus the next block, 56xxx, is all brake vans, starting with AA3 brakes to os Lot 680 - c. 1892/3, and the 57xxx series is V6 iron minks, starting with os Lot 578 - c. 1891?

 

This leads me to suppose that the vacant number blocks in the 51xxx and 55xxx ranges ought to belong to wagons built or acquired in the early 1890s. Given that these numbers aren't covered by any entries in the lot book, were any mineral wagons bought in from outside builders around this time?

[Western Star]

Need to ask Chris Brown if he covered the relevant registers last year, I shall ask this evening.

Edited November 4, 2020 by Western Star

[Compound2632]

I have benefitted from his helpfulness and generosity with his information.

[corneliuslundie]

I have just checked the actual CR loco coal wagon numbers. File attached as it is too long to post. There was an article about these wagons in a recent issue of Welsh Railways Archive by Stephen Bell.

But it doesn't answer your question.

Jonathan

CR 15T loco mcoal wagons.doc

[Compound2632]

37 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I have just checked the actual CR loco coal wagon numbers. File attached as it is too long to post.

 

Those numbers fit nicely in the gaps I have in the 43xxx and 53xxx series (without filling them completely) - both series being otherwise N diagram wagons and other Loco. Dept. oddities.

 

I take it the number in the LH column is the Cambrian number but what is the significance of 1903/1904 in the middle column?

Edited November 4, 2020 by Compound2632

[Chrisbr]

Sadly I have a copy of the 54xxx book, but not the 55xxx one!

[Compound2632]

Ah well, it'll remain a mystery for the time being.

[corneliuslundie]

Sorry, I forgot to explain. They were obtained in two batches, in 1903 and 1904, both from Pickering. Yes, the first column is the Cambrian numbers. They are by far the largest opens the Cambrian owned. Most of that company's opens was 8 or 10 ton 2-planks.

Jonathan

[Chrisbr]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I take it the number in the LH column is the Cambrian number but what is the significance of 1903/1904 in the middle column?

Yes, fist column is Cambrian number, middle column is build year, last column GWR number.

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

There's curious in itself. I have a copy of Atkins (1998 edition) on loan, this tells me that 43301-43325 were diagram N6 wagons of Lot 3, the first type of iron loco coal wagon, which agrees with the elegant copperplate first entry in the register. But it is listed as renumbered to "O G" (= open goods?) No. 76825, whereas Atkins tells us the loco coal wagons renumbered in 1904 into the series 76581-77030 were the wood-bodied loco coal wagons of diagram N7. The numbers Atkins gives for those are mostly random in the 9xxx and 23xxx series, apart from the blocks 43646-43670 and 43496-43645. To further confuse us, some kind soul has struck out "Iron" and written in "Wood"!

 

Interesting to see how the standard of penmanship had declined in thirty years!

[Western Star]

Stephen, a partial answer to your question.

 

I have asked the HMRS steward for GWR rolling stock for his take on the numbers in question.  The details that have been provided are indicative of a company policy...  and I wish to pursue a bit before providing the chapter and verse.  In essence, the reply makes the suggestion that the numbers 55001-55512 were set aside for broad standard gauge wagons which had been converted to run on the standard narrow gauge - this suggestion is based upon details of a few known wagons.

 

regards, Graham

Edited November 5, 2020 by Western Star

[Compound2632]

@Western Star, thanks. Whether such a wagon would still be in traffic in 1924 is another question...

 

I've also noticed with these number blocks that sometimes they're filled from both ends, with some batches of wagons being numbered down from the high end.

[hmrspaul]

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

There's curious in itself. I have a copy of Atkins (1998 edition) on loan, this tells me that 43301-43325 were diagram N6 wagons of Lot 3, the first type of iron loco coal wagon, which agrees with the elegant copperplate first entry in the register. But it is listed as renumbered to "O G" (= open goods?) No. 76825, whereas Atkins tells us the loco coal wagons renumbered in 1904 into the series 76581-77030 were the wood-bodied loco coal wagons of diagram N7. The numbers Atkins gives for those are mostly random in the 9xxx and 23xxx series, apart from the blocks 43646-43670 and 43496-43645. To further confuse us, some kind soul has struck out "Iron" and written in "Wood"!

 

Interesting to see how the standard of penmanship had declined in thirty years!

As I explained some time ago in a similar topic the GWR re-used numbers. They simply (!) crossed through details of the previous wagon and wrote in details of the new one. Usually a Condemnation date for the original use can be seen in the final column. This went on until the end of the GWR so even 'modern' wagons such as what BR called Conflat A were not in numerical sequence but not random either - they start somewhere with some gaps and then kept going using available numbers and missing out those still in use. It is why Atkins et al is so complex. 

 

In more usual times you could look at these registers at the NRM. 

 

Paul

PS to add the illustrated example is in 

Posted October 24, 2019 

Edited November 5, 2020 by hmrspaul

[Compound2632]

27 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

As I explained some time ago in a similar topic the GWR re-used numbers. They simply (!) crossed through details of the previous wagon and wrote in details of the new one. Usually a Condemnation date for the original use can be seen in the final column. This went on until the end of the GWR so even 'modern' wagons such as what BR called Conflat A were not in numerical sequence but not random either - they start somewhere with some gaps and then kept going using available numbers and missing out those still in use. It is why Atkins et al is so complex. 

 

In more usual times you could look at these registers at the NRM. 

 

Paul

 

 

The extract @Chrisbr posted illustrates just that process, apart from the confusion generated (at least in my mind) by the crossing out of iron and insertion of wood.

 

Yes, the GW re-used numbers - usually, as far as I can see, taking a number of a wagon of the same type, this new opens take the numbers of old opens. However, much new construction took new numbers, in logical blocks. The GW's wagon stock remained around the 87,000 throughout the grouping period yet we find block-numbered lots up to the 148xxx series by the 40s. 

 

My sticking-point is that I can't find in Atkins wagons in the 55001-55512 range at any period but I appear to have primary evidence of the existence of an open or mineral wagon with a number in that bolck.

[hmrspaul]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The extract @Chrisbr posted illustrates just that process, apart from the confusion generated (at least in my mind) by the crossing out of iron and insertion of wood.

 

 

Corrections and updates seem to have been added in red. So in my example a TVR open wagon is altered to show it is in use as a Container wagon. That correction in the example you refer to above is of the body material. Would the GWR have used iron for the body of a loco coal wagon in 1893?

 

You wrote

My sticking-point is that I can't find in Atkins wagons in the 55001-55512 range at any period but I appear to have primary evidence of the existence of an open or mineral wagon with a number in that bolck.

 

That isn't surprising. There is no mention of the TVR wagons built as recently as 1922 in Atkins et al although a photograph does suggest they were much older. And many of those became container wagons. There had to be something carrying containers in the 1920s and 30s but the bible doesn't mention many. Unfortunately, unlike the other Railways, official photos of containers on the GWR seem to have been taken on the deck as it were. Whereas for example the LMS showed the numerous LNWR wagons converted for this use in the 1920s. 

 

If and when this Covid lot is over then we can discuss looking at the registers if it continues to be the case that you can't get information from others. Its only a 10 minute walk for me. 

 

Paul

Edited November 5, 2020 by hmrspaul

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

Corrections and updates seem to have been added in red. So in my example a TVR open wagon is altered to show it is in use as a Container wagon. That correction in the example you refer to above is of the body material. Would the GWR have used iron for the body of a loco coal wagon in 1893?

 

I'm not an expert, just a reader of Atkins. There iron loco coal wagons subsequently assigned diagram N6 are recorded as being built 1889-1893 while wooden-bodied loco coal wagons subsequently assigned diagram N7 were built 1895-1889. For N6, Atkins records 1048 built including 44302, one of 200 built to Lot 3, while for N7, 473 are recorded, of which 450 are stated to have been converted to merchandise wagons - receiving sheet rails - to Lot 428 in 1904 and renumbered 76581-77030. 

 

The presumption has to be that a wagon converted to merchandise use would be wood-bodied, given the GW's preference for iron / steel loco coal wagons. So, how to interpret this register entry? Was the initial intention to build Lot 3 as iron-bodied but construction then changed to wood? (Atkins' information being based on a record of the original intention?) At what point was the first entry for a given wagon number made in the register? When the wagon was ordered or when it entered traffic?

 

It's interesting to compare the information available (to me at least) for Midland wagons and GW wagons. For GW wagons, there is very complete information on numbering* and Lots but Atkins is reticent on dates of ordering of Lots and also on drawing numbers - indeed, how many drawings for 19th century GW wagons survive, and where? There is, however, a primary source - the register - which gives specific dates for each wagon. For the Midland, we have the Lot list, which gives dates of ordering, quantities, drawing number, but nothing on numbering, and also a good surviving collection of 19th century drawings (from c. 1877 onwards). 

 

*Except where there isn't, as in the particular case I'm interested in!

[hmrspaul]

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

 

It's interesting to compare the information available (to me at least) for Midland wagons and GW wagons. For GW wagons, there is very complete information on numbering* and Lots but Atkins is reticent on dates of ordering of Lots and also on drawing numbers - indeed, how many drawings for 19th century GW wagons survive, and where? There is, however, a primary source - the register - which gives specific dates for each wagon. For the Midland, we have the Lot list, which gives dates of ordering, quantities, drawing number, but nothing on numbering, and also a good surviving collection of 19th century drawings (from c. 1877 onwards). 

 

*Except where there isn't, as in the particular case I'm interested in!

My understanding (from either Essery or Jenkinson in person but probably published somewhere) was that the MR records were destroyed by bombs during WW2. 

 

Paul

[Western Star]

To expand on my earlier answer...  I have exchanged e-mails with the HMRS Company Steward for GWR Rolling Stock and I have received information about three wagons which fall within the number range of interest to Stephen @Compound2632.

 

 

{summary}

(1)    Broad Gauge Open 10505 became NG 55401 and in due course the wagon was renumbered as ballast wagon 100034.  Wood body, 14ft 7½in x 7ft 1in x 2ft 4in body height, Iron underframe, 3ft dia wheels 8 x 3¾ journals OK a/boxes, 9ft w/base, 2 lever brake, 10 tons load, built by Brotherhood 1855, written C.O. Eng Dept. Renumbered  100034 Feb 1937. Cond Dec 1938.

 

(2) BG open 12072 converted to NG 55207 became ballast wagon 100086. Similar dimensions to the above. Built 1866 by Railway Carriage Co. Converted 1892, To Eng dept 2/37 Cond Nov 1939.

 

3) BG open 12024 to NG 55216 To Ballast 100738. Bult by Railway Carriage Co 1866. Cond Aug 1945.

 

These three wagons were identified from entries in the wagon register for wagon numbers 100000 onwards. That the wagons were given numbers above 100000 may explain how the details (above) have come to be known... there is a fair chance that the re-numbering was the first use of the 100034 / 86 / 738 numbers and hence the clerk took forward all of the relevant details from the original entries.

 

{end summary}

The wagon register entries for wagons 55207 / 16 / 401 have not been inspected as yet, that must await the re-opening of the NRM Search Engine.

 

regards, Graham

 

[Compound2632]

The wagon label is dated 1 Feb 1924, which is well before at least 55401 was renumbered into the 100xxx series. If 55269 had a similar history, I doubt there was very much left of the old BG wagon by the time it made its trip with a load of coal from Grimethorpe to Keswick!

[Compound2632]

@Western Star, who should I credit for this information? I can't find on line a list of HMRS stewards, you mentioned the name Chris Brown, is this @Chrisbr? This is for a footnote in the Midland Railway Society Journal.

[Western Star]

Stephen,

 

My information came from Mr. John Lewis who is the current HMRS Steward for GWR C&W information.  My good fried Chris Brown @Chrisbr keeps me on the straight and narrow in regard to GWR register records for the vast number of four plank wagons built in the late 19th century / early 20th century (even though that "line" seems to be wavy, wonky and wide at the slighest provocation).

 

regards, Graham

Edited November 16, 2020 by Western Star

[corneliuslundie]

John is a mine of information on GWR rolling stock matters both passenger and goods, and very helpful. If you want to contact him use the form on the Stewards page and your query will be forwarded. I am not sure why his "steward" e-mail address is not published as it is available to HMRS members.

But please don't overwhelm him with queries. I am keeping him quite busy enough at the moment!

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

23 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

But please don't overwhelm him with queries. I am keeping him quite busy enough at the moment!

 

I think I'm good for now. Thanks to all who have contributed.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Compound2632