'Not to be run on the Caledonian Rly'

[kevinlms]

In Railway Modeller for 1962 November, there are some drawings of GER wagons, drawn by Sir Eric.

The last one with the number 21647, a Portable Engine Wagon, carries the wording as per the title.

 

Any ideas of why the wagon would carry such a marking and why the Caledonian Railway is specified?

[PatB]

32 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

In Railway Modeller for 1962 November, there are some drawings of GER wagons, drawn by Sir Eric.

The last one with the number 21647, a Portable Engine Wagon, carries the wording as per the title.

 

Any ideas of why the wagon would carry such a marking and why the Caledonian Railway is specified?

Maybe they had a reputation for not giving wagons back . 

 

More likely might be a loading gauge issue. Did parts of the Caley have particularly restrictive clearances that would be exceeded if the wagon was loaded with any of the portable engines manufactured in GER territory? If so, perhaps a blanket prohibition was the simplest means of dealing with the problem. 

[kevinlms]

53 minutes ago, PatB said:

Maybe they had a reputation for not giving wagons back . 

 

More likely might be a loading gauge issue. Did parts of the Caley have particularly restrictive clearances that would be exceeded if the wagon was loaded with any of the portable engines manufactured in GER territory? If so, perhaps a blanket prohibition was the simplest means of dealing with the problem. 

Well both answers had occurred to me.

 

I doubt that the Caley were the only ones, to be slow giving back useful wagons!

 

The Scottish lines did have a lower loading gauge. Many pre-group LMS locos (such as the Claughton's) had to have cabs cleaned of fittings etc, for them to be able to operate in Scotland.

[drduncan]

Could it be due to braking systems? The CR was a Westinghouse rather than vacuum line...

[kevinlms]

43 minutes ago, drduncan said:

Could it be due to braking systems? The CR was a Westinghouse rather than vacuum line...

The drawing shows no sign of any brakes, apart from handbrakes. But the Caley was hardly the only Westinghouse brake railway.

 

But wasn't the GER an air brake railway?

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, PatB said:

Maybe they had a reputation for not giving wagons back . 

 

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

I doubt that the Caley were the only ones, to be slow giving back useful wagons!

 

There were financial penalties for failure to return other companies' wagons within a few days, administered through the RCH. This will have continued for special wagons after the introduction of pooling for ordinary opens and vans.

 

4 hours ago, drduncan said:

Could it be due to braking systems? The CR was a Westinghouse rather than vacuum line...

 

It's a goods wagon. Continuous brakes don't come into it.

 

6 hours ago, PatB said:

More likely might be a loading gauge issue. 

 

That sounds right to me. But in that case it's surprising that there weren't restrictions for other lines. Perhaps this particular restriction was the fruit of bitter experience.

[lanchester]

Could it be commercial rather than technical? Say a regular flow from a GE area manufacturer to the Clyde for export, with a contract for carriage with the North British?

[kevinlms]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

There were financial penalties for failure to return other companies' wagons within a few days, administered through the RCH. This will have continued for special wagons after the introduction of pooling for ordinary opens and vans.

 

 

It's a goods wagon. Continuous brakes don't come into it.

 

 

That sounds right to me. But in that case it's surprising that there weren't restrictions for other lines. Perhaps this particular restriction was the fruit of bitter experience.

So exactly how harsh was the penalty for not giving it back within a certain time frame? Everyone says there was a monetary penalty, but was it considered as 'lets pay the fine, it's cheaper to do that occasionally, than build our own special wagon'!

 

Agree about the goods wagon, a 'portable engine' load, isn't going to go by express service anywhere.

 

I suspect it is the result of bitter experience. The type of wagon, suggests it might be a recurring traffic from the likes of Richard Garrett & Sons of Leiston. Hard to maintain booked delivery times, if someone is hanging onto your specialist wagon(s).

[Compound2632]

Looking in P. Tatlow, LNER Wagons Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 2005) pp. 211-3, the wagon in question was one of a batch of ten built in 1907, Great Eastern diagram D24, numbered 21641-50. There is a photo of No. 21650, evidently an official photo of a new-built wagon, with no restriction instructions painted on it, nor does Tatlow list any restrictions, though I think these would be given in the diagram book. 

 

An unusual feature of all the GE implement wagons illustrated in Tatlow is that they have fixed flat plates over the buffer guides, supported by triangular fillets or brackets, in place of the hinged flaps sometimes provided on such wagons for end loading of wheeled vehicles. 

 

9 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

So exactly how harsh was the penalty for not giving it back within a certain time frame? Everyone says there was a monetary penalty, but was it considered as 'lets pay the fine, it's cheaper to do that occasionally, than build our own special wagon'!

 

There would undoubtedly be an additional administrative penalty in the form of correspondence between the goods managers of the two companies. While ordinary wagons did occasionally go missing through errors and omissions in the paperwork, close tabs would be kept on specially-constructed wagons. I'm sure that if the Caledonian had a pressing shortage of implement wagons, the Great Eastern would have been happy enough to hire its wagon out, so long as that wasn't to the detriment of its own traffic!

[Curlew]

One idea not so far considered is that the Caledonian may have imposed the restriction itself.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Curlew said:

One idea not so far considered is that the Caledonian may have imposed the restriction itself.

 

My gut feeling is that there must have been some sort of restriction brokerage through the RCH, which was after all an organisation set up by the railway companies for their own convenience in such matters. 

[kevinlms]

29 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Looking in P. Tatlow, LNER Wagons Vol. 1 (Wild Swan, 2005) pp. 211-3, the wagon in question was one of a batch of ten built in 1907, Great Eastern diagram D24, numbered 21641-50. There is a photo of No. 21650, evidently an official photo of a new-built wagon, with no restriction instructions painted on it, nor does Tatlow list any restrictions, though I think these would be given in the diagram book. 

 

An unusual feature of all the GE implement wagons illustrated in Tatlow is that they have fixed flat plates over the buffer guides, supported by triangular fillets or brackets, in place of the hinged flaps sometimes provided on such wagons for end loading of wheeled vehicles. 

 

 

 

Yes, that would be the same wagon type as Sir Eric's drawing. The number is within the range and the buffer cover is shown.

 

The difference between Peter Tatlow's drawing and that of Sir Eric's, is that the former is 'as built' and the latter is in service, which suggests that a problem in use occurred.

[PatB]

2 hours ago, Curlew said:

One idea not so far considered is that the Caledonian may have imposed the restriction itself.

They may, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a reason, unless the axle loading was something silly. After all, as long as loading gauge restrictions are met, one unfitted 4 wheel wagon, running at unfitted train speeds, is going to behave much like another, given reasonable bearings and maintenance. Given the Scottish penchant for antedeluvian mineral wagon designs, surely the Caley wouldn't have any practical running problems with a reasonably up to date implement wagon. 

[The Stationmaster]

The only thing that I can think of is the possibility of permissible width below platform level but I can't find any information about that.  Gauging otherwise appears not to have been an issue because there were more restrictive loading gauges between the GER and the Caley than existed on the Caley itself.

[JimC]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

The only thing that I can think of is the possibility of permissible width below platform level but I can't find any information about that.  Gauging otherwise appears not to have been an issue because there were more restrictive loading gauges between the GER and the Caley than existed on the Caley itself.

According to the data I found in the 1921 Railway year book (see study in signature) the Caledonian gauge was lower than most (but the same as the NBR and others), but carried a 9ft width limit much closer to the track than most others, so I doubt it was width below platform. Was it the Caledonian that had locomotives with wider outside cylinders than were acceptable on much of the LMS.

Edited June 19, 2021 by JimC

[Wickham Green too]

7 hours ago, Curlew said:

One idea not so far considered is that the Caledonian may have imposed the restriction itself.

Perhaps by imposing a surcharge for Special Wagons venturing onto their metals ??

[Steamport Southport]

Might have just been to tell people to send it by the NBR instead for operational reasons.

 

8 hours ago, lanchester said:

Could it be commercial rather than technical? Say a regular flow from a GE area manufacturer to the Clyde for export, with a contract for carriage with the North British?

 

Pretty much my feelings.

 

I would assume it's one of the traction engine manufacturers in East Anglia. Ships loaded with engines from North British Loco Company and the other loco builders going to places like Australia or India. Add a few traction engines.

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

It seems to me that there's no evidence here for traffic from East Anglia to Scotland - rather the contrary, since this wagon is unacceptable on the Caledonian. But if there was, I'm fairly sure the routing would be determined administratively through the paperwork and the wagon label. I think possible routes would have been:

• via the GN & GE joint line, York, the NER and NBR;
• via Peterborough, the Midland, and then either the G&SWR or NBR - certainly not the Caledonian;
• via Peterborough, the LNWR and Caledonian - the longest way round.

Really, I think the only likely explanation for the restriction is physical, in terms of loading gauge or some factor in the way the wagon is constructed, such as those end loading projections.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Compound2632

[JimC]

26 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Really, I think the only likely explanation for the restriction is physical, in terms of loading gauge or some factor in the way the wagon is constructed, such as those end loading projections.

What are the basic dimensions of the wagon? Is it some kind of well wagon? If the OP would like to PM me a scan of the end elevation I could check it against the static loading gauge I have. The Caledonian gauge is one of the very simplest though, the OP could do the same exercise working from my drawing if he prefers. 
I'd be surprised if static clearance were a problem though, if only because the North British gauge is smaller. If its a reasonably long wagon, though, throwover on bends is more likely to cause trouble than the actual elevation. Again, though, unless the Caledonian went in for particularly small curves, I wonder why the North British wouldn't be similarly affected. 
If any of you reading have the appropriate documents for other pre group lines it would be interesting if others have similar restrictions for the Caledonian on any of their stock.

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, JimC said:

What are the basic dimensions of the wagon? Is it some kind of well wagon? If the OP would like to PM me a scan of the end elevation I could check it against the static loading gauge I have. The Caledonian gauge is one of the very simplest though, the OP could do the same exercise working from my drawing if he prefers. 

 

From my reading of the photo and dimensions in Tatlow: 

 

Unlike many implement or traction wagons, it is practically a flat-bed - nothing of the Lowmac about it. It's a 4-wheeler, 18 ft over headstocks, 10 ft wheelbase, 12 tons capacity; certainly no wider than your average wagon - from the photo, probably no more than 8 ft over the body side. It's steel framed and the solebars sit lower than usual (so it has smaller than usual wheels, maybe 2'6" diameter) to keep the deck low - about 3'6" above rail level, with ramps up to the top of the headstocks - about 4 ft above rail level. Oil axleboxes, single-side brakes. Really a most inoffensive wagon. The only unusual feature is those end projections. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Compound2632

[Dave John]

No idea really. I can't remember ever having read anything about it from the CR perspective. 

 

My copy of Tatlow is old , so I don't have a pic of it. However the Caley were not fussy about wagon brakes, and the loading gauge issue is about the load , the wagon is within it. 

 

Were these wagons built for a particular traffic flow ? I suspect that might be the reason . 

 

 

 

[kevinlms]

On 20/06/2021 at 07:54, JimC said:

What are the basic dimensions of the wagon? Is it some kind of well wagon? If the OP would like to PM me a scan of the end elevation I could check it against the static loading gauge I have. The Caledonian gauge is one of the very simplest though, the OP could do the same exercise working from my drawing if he prefers. 
I'd be surprised if static clearance were a problem though, if only because the North British gauge is smaller. If its a reasonably long wagon, though, throwover on bends is more likely to cause trouble than the actual elevation. Again, though, unless the Caledonian went in for particularly small curves, I wonder why the North British wouldn't be similarly affected. 
If any of you reading have the appropriate documents for other pre group lines it would be interesting if others have similar restrictions for the Caledonian on any of their stock.

OK, here is the set of drawings, with it being the last one.

 

As Compound2632 has suggested there is nothing remarkable about the wagon at all, apart from the marking, the topic of the discussion.

 

Just a flat low box on wheels, the unusual object is the covers over the buffers.

 

My scanner is only an entry level one, so not that great, but the line to the left and below G.E. is just the centreline, identical as what is on the right, so nothing helpful there.

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by kevinlms

[ossy5190]

The buffer covers seem to be the only unusual feature of the wagon which could cause problems although some CR and LNWR open carriage trucks had similar fittings. The Caley did have lists of individual wagons which were banned from specific sidings but they tended to be large trolley wagons or other specialist heavy wagons which couldn't negotiate tight curves. The unusual branding would be enough of a reason to build a model of it but unfortunately its the reason why it couldn't run on my layout!

[DOCJACOB]

Vaquely recall couple of other reasons why wagons were banned from certain areas?

 

NBR wagons at one pointr banned from travelled from travelling South due to shoddy maintenance & likely breakdown 

 

Point locking tredle bar length was isue to in some pre-grouping areas, think this my have had something to do with MR track 

[JimC]

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Just a flat low box on wheels, the unusual object is the covers over the buffers.

The drawing isn't as helpful as it might be, with the lack of detail of the underframe and headstock fittings, but yes, I agree, barring the buffers it seems quite conventional in size and shape and there's no obvious gauging issue that I can spot. And while the buffer covers are indeed unusual, I would have thought if there were a compatibility problem with CR stock it would be labelled not to be run with Caledonian stock or suchlike. Seems to me it could be marshalled up against a CR wagon anywhere, not just on the CR.