'Not to be run on the Caledonian Rly'

[Steamport Southport]

The buffer covers are the same idea as what the Lowmacs had.

 

BR were still building them like that in the 1950s which is the basis for the Airfix kit that had it's origins in the GER.

 

https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/brlowmacek/e2398f265

 

 

Jason

[Trog]

I would think that it is a gauging issue, as it is a blanket ban I would suspect the issue is with the wagon not the load. If it was the load I would expect problems to be ironed out when the loaded item was gauged before leaving its yard of origin. As it is more or less a bog standard sized wagon but with a lower deck due to smaller wheels, I would look to see if the Caledonian  loading gauge was narrower than average below solebar level due to platform or centre girder heights.

 

It is noticeable when track walking that almost all centre girders are dented on the ends,  and or have scrape marks, so this is presumably a generally tight area gauging wise. Which is why I always took great care to get the tracks of excavators overhanging evenly when loading them onto Flatrol wagons.

[Compound2632]

55 minutes ago, Trog said:

I would think that it is a gauging issue, as it is a blanket ban I would suspect the issue is with the wagon not the load. If it was the load I would expect problems to be ironed out when the loaded item was gauged before leaving its yard of origin. As it is more or less a bog standard sized wagon but with a lower deck due to smaller wheels, I would look to see if the Caledonian  loading gauge was narrower than average below solebar level due to platform or centre girder heights.

 

In fact we were told upthread that it was 9 ft to nearer rail level than most.

 

Is there any evidence for these wagons having this instruction, apart from Sir Eric's drawing? 

[Wickham Green too]

Seems a very odd think for him to invent for no reason !

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Seems a very odd think for him to invent for no reason !

 

I agree. It's just so puzzling, as we've seen. What information do we think Sir Eric was working from? I gather he was well-connected with the industry, so may have had access to drawings and/or diagrams; he presumably saw the wagons in the flesh. But is there any photographic evidence?

[Wickham Green too]

What we need is mole in the Great Eastern Railway Society ; Wagons Branch !

[Steamport Southport]

Still think it's to do with regular traffic of traction engines from East Anglia for export. Glasgow Docks exported a lot of steam engines.

 

Quite a few of the manufacturers were based there, that's why the GER had a lot of machinery wagons compared to other companies.

 

Just a few examples of major manufacturers in GER territory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Burrell_%26_Sons

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garrett_%26_Sons

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall,_Sons_%26_Co.

 

 

Jason

[Ravenser]

17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

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.

 

Of those routing options, the first is commercially most likely since it would have maximised m ileage on GE metals (and therefore the GE's share of reciepts). They were running the Cathedrals Express into York, so I assume they had running powers that far north. And in any case up the Joint then up the ECML to Edinburgh is going to the the most direct route , or nearly so, for most of Scotland. Glasgow via Newcastle/Edinburgh should be shorter than via Leicester, Leeds and Carlisle

 

The issue would only seem to arise if Richard Garrett were consigning to a buyer somewhere on the Caley system not readily served by the NBR or GSWR

 

Given that there doesn't seem to be an actual loading gauge issue , and it's restricted to one company, I can only assume that this is a commerical issue. It smells like there had been a serious dispute between the companies over an implement wagon, or portable wagon shipment, in which the GE felt the Caley had behaved in a wholly unacceptable manner, but had failed to obtain redress. (The CR management might have felt that the GE was a long way away, not much of a freight railway, and they didn't need to bother about good relations). It smells very much like a directive to prevent any further problems by ensuring the CR had no involvement in any implement wagon shipments.

 

It looks like the GE had a small pool of special wagons essentially dedicated to the business of two or three agricultural engineers doing business across Britain. They will have been closely monitored, and the appropriation of one would have caused significant issues. There will have been wagon demurrage penalties through the RCH , but whether they were adequete to deal with non-return of an expensive special wagon in relatively intensive use is another matter.

 

If it had gone further - eg a wagon reported back through the RCH as stopped for repairs for months which is subsequently reported to be in regular use for Clydeside shipyard traffic while the CR blandly deny any knowledge of it "Portable engine wagon? I see no portable engine wagon..." - then this becomes understandable.

 

There must have been agreed procedures within the RCH for writing off wagons damaged in traffic. If, as an extreme case, a GE implement wagon had been reported "written off" by the CR and it was subsequently learnt it had been repaired and used for CR traffic, I can imagine all hell breaking loose in the Chief Goods Manager's office at Liverpool St.

 

Alternatively this may relate to a dispute over the division of receipts , where the CR were demanding terms for handling implement wagon traffic that were wholly unacceptable to the GE, so a routing instruction was issued never to route via the Caley - reflected in the wording on the wagon (Which might have been aimed as much at shunters in Scottish yards or at Carlisle as at anyone else)

[Ravenser]

13 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Still think it's to do with regular traffic of traction engines from East Anglia for export. Glasgow Docks exported a lot of steam engines.

 

Quite a few of the manufacturers were based there, that's why the GER had a lot of machinery wagons compared to other companies.

 

Just a few examples of major manufacturers in GER territory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Burrell_%26_Sons

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garrett_%26_Sons

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall,_Sons_%26_Co.

 

 

Jason

 

Gainsborough is not GE territory, though the Joint line was one route serving the town. Marshalls are more likely to have sent their products via the GN or the GC than by the GE

 

One further point - I can't see why anyone would export agricultural machinery from an East Anglian manufacturer through Glasgow. In pre-container days , ships would spend up to a month working their way round Britain loading at 4-6 ports - London, Southampton, Liverpool, Glasgow, Hull, maybe Bristol. Why rail shipments from E Anglia to Glasgow for export when you could rail them to London or Hull??

Edited June 20, 2021 by Ravenser

[Compound2632]

I can't help feeling that if the wagon was dedicated to a regular traffic, that would be stated positively: "To work between Chas Burrell & Co's Siding, Thetford, GER and xxx sidings, Glasgow, NBR" 

 

Actually I'm struggling to work out where the NBR would ship from, or even the G&SWR, without running over lines that were at least joint with the Caledonian:

 

 

[Compound2632]

By the way, many of Glasgow's locomotive exports were worked from Springburn to the docks through the streets, using horse or traction engine power. Whether the traction engines were of East Anglian manufacture, I've no idea. Or by motor in later days. Many of the locomotives for export were to gauges other than 4'8½".

Edited June 20, 2021 by Compound2632

[Ravenser]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

By the way, many of Glasgow's locomotive exports were worked from Springburn to the docks through the streets, using horse or traction engine power. Whether the traction engines were of East Anglian manufacture, I've no idea. Or by motor in later days. Many of the locomotives for export were to gauges other than 4'8½".

 

I can't see someone in East Anglia shipping through Glasgow when London was far closer - and a much bigger port.

[The Stationmaster]

22 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

Of those routing options, the first is commercially most likely since it would have maximised m ileage on GE metals (and therefore the GE's share of reciepts). They were running the Cathedrals Express into York, so I assume they had running powers that far north. And in any case up the Joint then up the ECML to Edinburgh is going to the the most direct route , or nearly so, for most of Scotland. Glasgow via Newcastle/Edinburgh should be shorter than via Leicester, Leeds and Carlisle

 

GER engines worked through to York on passenger trains although whether that was by formal Running Powers or some sort of mileage equalisation agreement I don't know.  I'd be surprised  if the GER had Goods Running Powers as far north as York.

[cadder toad]

The map shown by compond2362 doesn't show the NB Stobcross branch which ran to Queens Dock on the opposite bank to Princes Dock. The Princes Dock branch on the map is shown as jointly owned by three cos. incl NB. Need the wagon have been used for export traffic? I'd imagine portable engines were used in Glasgow industry and also in docks, farms and quarries across Scotland

[Compound2632]

31 minutes ago, cadder toad said:

I'd imagine portable engines were used in Glasgow industry

 

As mentioned, for moving locomotives through the streets!

[Wickham Green too]

 

On 20/06/2021 at 19:55, Compound2632 said:

As mentioned, for moving locomotives through the streets!

No, No, No .................. a Portable Engine is just that - an engine that CAN BE transported .... it has no means of moving itself let alone anything else.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2022 by Wickham Green too
Photo reinstated

[Compound2632]

Oh! For driving threshing machines and the like.

[Wickham Green too]

Indeed ........ but why they needed a particular style of wagon is a mystery !  -  they and traction engines came in different shapes an sizes.

[JimC]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

but why they needed a particular style of wagon is a mystery !  -  they and traction engines came in different shapes an sizes.

Yes but... the unique feature of the wagon was the facility to run loads over the buffers. The portable engines could be wheeled onto the wagon(s)  from an end loading dock instead of needing to load with a crane. 

Edited June 20, 2021 by JimC

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, JimC said:

Yes but... the unique feature of the wagon was the facility to run loads over the buffers. The portable engines could be wheeled onto the wagon(s)  from an end loading dock instead of needing to load with a crane. 

 

But that could be done with any implement or machinery wagon, either using hinged flaps on the wagon itself or on the end loading dock. Nothing unusual here.

 

Of course, for some types of vehicle, an end loading dock is not essential:

 

 

[Midland Railway Study Centre Item 88-2014-0062, embedded link from on-line catalogue.]

[keefer]

I'm inclined to think it was (as previously mentioned) a contractual issue - for whatever reason, the CR were not to be responsible/liable for the running of the traffic.

Whatever Scottish company was entrusted with the traffic need not matter too much. As long as that Company's trains/staff were used, could they not also be routed over lines which had joint powers, or some similar agreement, with the CR?

I suppose the only non-CR options would be NBR/GSWR but these also had lines where you might not expect them, along with any CR-joint lines (c.f. NBR in the Glasgow RCH diagram previous)

[Nick Holliday]

On 20/06/2021 at 14:11, Trog said:

I would think that it is a gauging issue, as it is a blanket ban I would suspect the issue is with the wagon not the load. If it was the load I would expect problems to be ironed out when the loaded item was gauged before leaving its yard of origin. As it is more or less a bog standard sized wagon but with a lower deck due to smaller wheels, I would look to see if the Caledonian  loading gauge was narrower than average below solebar level due to platform or centre girder heights.

 

 

Looking at https://www.devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/loadinggauges.php there are details of a number of pre-grouping loading gauges.  Although the Caledonian is a bit shy on the upper measurements, compared with the GER, the differences are small and shared with a number of major companies, including the NBR, MR, LNWR, GNR and GCR.  However, comparing the two overall envelopes, as attached, it is clear that the Caledonian, in purple, had issues at near to track level, when compared with the GER, in orange, which is similar to the other companies' diagrams on the website.

[Trog]

GER  Dia 24 Imp E  to carry 12 Tons. Ten built in 1907 Nos 21641 to 21650.

 

Photo of 21650 on page 211 of LNER Wagons Volume 1. LNER Southern area by Peter Tatlow.

 

Depending how high above the rail the inset at the base of the Caledonian loading gauge is, there might be a conflict with the axle boxes of a wagon with small wheels as the dimension across the axle box covers going by diagrams where the body side and axle box faces are of equal width and a body width is given. Appears to be two or three inches more than the width I get by scaling the lower part of the loading gauge diagram above.  

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, Trog said:

GER  Dia 24 Imp E  to carry 12 Tons. Ten built in 1907 Nos 21641 to 21650.

 

Photo of 21650 on page 211 of LNER Wagons Volume 1. LNER Southern area by Peter Tatlow.

 

Depending how high above the rail the inset at the base of the Caledonian loading gauge is, there might be a conflict with the axle boxes of a wagon with small wheels as the dimension across the axle box covers going by diagrams where the body side and axle box faces are of equal width and a body width is given. Appears to be two or three inches more than the width I get by scaling the lower part of the loading gauge diagram above.  

 

Yes, and no:

 

There's no reason to suppose journal centres are other than the standard 6'6" so width over axleboxes can be no more than 8'0" or so. I'm sure the Caledonian will have had some smaller-wheeled machinery trucks of its own - most big lines did - and even so those axleboxes don't reach down to that low-level limit, which is about 7'6" to just 6" above rail level and 9'0" above that. Comparing with the 8'8"-wide MAC K illustrated on the following two pages of Tatlow, I think it's clear we're looking at a narrower vehicle- compare the size of the gusset plates. It would be handy if someone with access to the GER diagram book could confirm the width but I continue to maintain that there is nothing physically abnormal about this wagon that would lead to it being foul of the Caledonian or any other loading gauge.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Compound2632

[kevinlms]

8 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

 

Looking at https://www.devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/loadinggauges.php there are details of a number of pre-grouping loading gauges.  Although the Caledonian is a bit shy on the upper measurements, compared with the GER, the differences are small and shared with a number of major companies, including the NBR, MR, LNWR, GNR and GCR.  However, comparing the two overall envelopes, as attached, it is clear that the Caledonian, in purple, had issues at near to track level, when compared with the GER, in orange, which is similar to the other companies' diagrams on the website.

Doesn't that mean that the Caledonian had some problem with the track infrastructure, at least somewhere on the system. Maybe some point operating mechanism somewhere?

 

Glasgow Central had an electro-pneumatic signal & point system installed in 1889, were the point motors the reason for the low inset?

 

Or could it be the bridge girders in this photo? They do seem rather close to the rails.

 

https://ne-np.facebook.com/DavidTurnerrailway/photos/a.10152505271560631/10158917082315631/?type=3&theater