Iron ore train composition on the Western Region 1951 - 1965

[Weaselfish]

Good afternoon.

 

Were iron ore trains ever run with both tipplers and hoppers in the same rake? I'm particularly interested in finding out if this was a regular occurrence on the Western Region between the introduction of tipplers in 1951 and the end of steam on the WR in 1965. The limited range of photos of these trains in my own book collection show trains composed of various types of either tipplers or hoppers, but never the two types together. I've drawn a blank with other online sources so would be grateful for any information on the point or a steer towards any relevant sources.

 

Thank you in advance for any guidance.

[Fat Controller]

I've only found photos of one or other, I'm afraid. Margam drew home-produced ore, mainly from the Banbury area, using tipplers. East Moors used domestic ore (haematite) from the mine at Llanharry, using hoppers. Ebbw Vale used imported ore, mainly from Newport Docks, in a mix of hoppers, as did Llanwern. The Facebook site, 'Railways of South Wales', may be able to help. 

[br2975]

Margam took mainly imported ore from the quayside, and as Brian says above, in tipplers from the OIC in the Banbury area.

.

East Moors (Cardiff) used mainly imported ore, unloaded alongside the works, in the Roath Dock  ( for which traffic they bought a solitary Beyer Garratt ); but the works also took in ore from the Glamorgan Haemetite mine at Llanharry, in hoppers; and on occasions also took in ore from the Banbury area.

.

Ebbw Vale took in imported ore, conveyed in hoppers generally from Newport Docks, but also from Barry when Newport was closed for maintenance.

.

The Spencer Works (Llanwern) from its inception in the early 60s took in imported ore, landed at Newport, and using hopper wagons.

.

Consideration had been given to building a further batch of the Tyne Dock-Consett side discharge wagons for this ciruit, but for operational reasons this was discounted, and four wheeled hoppers used, initially top and tailed by Cl.37s.

.

Like Brian above, I have never seen evidence of hoppers and tipplers in a mixed rake and serving the same plant.

.

But, I learned a long time ago, that not having seen any evidence, doesn't mean it didn't happen, once, maybe twice.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I regularly saw the Bilston trains from the Banbury area in the early 1960s. These were always hoppers but very varied throughout the train with lots of 1930s ex-PO wagons. I have even seen one photograph of an LNER wooden one included in a train of more conventional types in BR days.

[Mol_PMB]

Iron ore almost always ran in block trains from mine/quarry/port to steelworks.

The choice of tippler or hopper depended on a number of factors, including the unloading facilities available at the steelworks, and the nature of the ore (i.e. lumpy or fine, sticky or smooth-flowing etc).

Generally for a particular flow, it would only make sense to use either all hoppers or all tipplers in a train.

A possible exception is that I think some iron-ore hoppers were modified so they could be tippled, so you might see some of them in a train of tipplers if they would fit in the same tippler.

 

[Weaselfish]

Thank you everyone. This is very helpful. I suspected that hoppers and tipplers would not normally run together given the different unloading facilities required, but my knowledge of this traffic is limited hence me looking for better-informed input.

 

FAT CONTROLLER: Thank you for the pointer about the Railways of South Wales Group. I'll check that out.

 

Thanks again all.

[Blandford1969]

Have a look at views on the SMJR as the trains from 60 ran off the Western at Stratford to a new cord with the SMJR and thence to Fenny Compton. There are quite a few views to be found. 

[br2975]

10 hours ago, Weaselfish said:

FAT CONTROLLER: Thank you for the pointer about the Railways of South Wales Group. I'll check that out.

 

 

If you wish to become a member of the FB Group - "Railways in South Wales" please bear in mind, you MUST answer the two simple security questions, otherwise the 'admin' will 'bounce' your application for membership.

.

How do I know ?

.

Because,................................I'm the 'admin'

.

Brian R

[2E Sub Shed]

If you can find a copy of the Ian Allan "Trains 68" Annual, then there is a description of a trip of  a Banbury OIC Sidings- Cardiff - Margam train journey made on Friday 20th March 1959. This predates the use of the SMJ, the connection work is noted as well in progress in the article, this journey being routed via the Honeybourne line..

 

The train load for the journey is described as "29 26 ton roller-bearinged, but loose coupled grey tipplers, plus 20 ton GW brake van", engine was 28XX 3843 a Cardiff Canton engine. It notes this was the full banker load for the locomotive

 

Also the article notes that in a siding near Banbury Junction there were "rusty derelict-looking tippler wagons, these being bauxite painted continuos braked" which were not in use due to objections from users, although it was noted these were in use in 1968.

 

Capacity of wagons in use in 1959 is given as 25/27, 24.5 , 22, 20 &16 ton with 14 ton use dying out.  

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, br2975 said:

Margam took mainly imported ore from the quayside, and as Brian says above, in tipplers from the OIC in the Banbury area.

.

East Moors (Cardiff) used mainly imported ore, unloaded alongside the works, in the Roath Dock  ( for which traffic they bought a solitary Beyer Garratt ); but the works also took in ore from the Glamorgan Haemetite mine at Llanharry, in hoppers; and on occasions also took in ore from the Banbury area.

.

Ebbw Vale took in imported ore, conveyed in hoppers generally from Newport Docks, but also from Barry when Newport was closed for maintenance.

.

The Spencer Works (Llanwern) from its inception in the early 60s took in imported ore, landed at Newport, and using hopper wagons.

.

Consideration had been given to building a further batch of the Tyne Dock-Consett side discharge wagons for this ciruit, but for operational reasons this was discounted, and four wheeled hoppers used, initially top and tailed by Cl.37s.

.

Like Brian above, I have never seen evidence of hoppers and tipplers in a mixed rake and serving the same plant.

.

But, I learned a long time ago, that not having seen any evidence, doesn't mean it didn't happen, once, maybe twice.

Llanwern ore trains from Newport docks were initially steam hauled using 42XX and I think had one on the back as well as the one the front.  I've just checked back on an old post to find that I haven't posted my photo of one passing through Newport High Street so I'll have to try and delve it out.

[br2975]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Llanwern ore trains from Newport docks were initially steam hauled using 42XX and I think had one on the back as well as the one the front.  I've just checked back on an old post to find that I haven't posted my photo of one passing through Newport High Street so I'll have to try and delve it out.

 

A byline in the Modern Railways, December 1962 confirms Mike's comment regarding 42xx tanks top 'n' tailing Newport Docks - Spencer Works (Llanwern) ore trains.

.

Whereas a much longer, and interesting article in the February, 1964 edition 'Modernisation in South Wales' details the steel industry and especially the wagons used for finished products, together with an insight into CPC (Continuous Progress Control) an early forerunner to TOPS.

[KingEdwardII]

I have a photo of a 9F 2-10-0 hauling a train of iron ore hoppers between Newport - Ebbw Vale in 1954 in James Page's "Rails in the Valleys". I can't see any tipplers mixed in, although the most distant wagons are hard to make out.

 

These trains needed some serious brawn, since unlike the typical South Wales coal trains, they were going loaded uphill.

 

There is a photo of 4250 2-8-0T hauling a set of loaded tippler wagons through Cardiff destined for Margam "in the late 1950s" in the book "Great Western Eight Coupled Heavy Freight Locomotives". All tipplers, no mixing...

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Fat Controller]

Thanks for posting that article, Brian. Curious that they used rotary tipplers, despite the wagons having bottom doors. I would have thought the hopper option would have been quicker, there being no reason to split the train. The coke-unloading tippler at BSC Landore had a clever arrangement, with a gap between the rails to allow hoppers to use their bottom doors.

[The Stationmaster]

23 hours ago, br2975 said:

 

A byline in the Modern Railways, December 1962 confirms Mike's comment regarding 42xx tanks top 'n' tailing Newport Docks - Spencer Works (Llanwern) ore trains.

.

Whereas a much longer, and interesting article in the February, 1964 edition 'Modernisation in South Wales' details the steel industry and especially the wagons used for finished products, together with an insight into CPC (Continuous Progress Control) an early forerunner to TOPS.

I would be very careful about calling CPC 'an early forerunner to TOPS'.  The idea might well have had more than a hint of TOPS about it but the computer which ran it (in Marland House - a building you'll obviously remember, if only from the outside, Brian) very quickly settled into gathering dust and not much else as it was very much a case of RIRO.  Hence Control sending out an instructions for 50 empty Mins to be moved from Briton Ferry to a pit that desperately needed empties would be greeted with cries of disbelief and hollow laughter at Briton Ferry because the 50 empty Mins CPC placed there by CPC were non-existent.   I think the failings of CPC was one reason why a number of folk in South Wales were very dubious about TOPS when they first heard about it.

[br2975]

30 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I would be very careful about calling CPC 'an early forerunner to TOPS'.  The idea might well have had more than a hint of TOPS about it but the computer which ran it (in Marland House - a building you'll obviously remember, if only from the outside, Brian) very quickly settled into gathering dust and not much else as it was very much a case of RIRO.  Hence Control sending out an instructions for 50 empty Mins to be moved from Briton Ferry to a pit that desperately needed empties would be greeted with cries of disbelief and hollow laughter at Briton Ferry because the 50 empty Mins CPC placed there by CPC were non-existent.   I think the failings of CPC was one reason why a number of folk in South Wales were very dubious about TOPS when they first heard about it.

Having had the basics of CPC explained to me by a very patient Bob Masterman, in whose department at Marland House it was then located ( and once 'used' ) - all those 'binary style' digits would have, no,  did have me totally bewildered. 

.

Being a dinosaur, I would have found the one time regular phone calls to Queen Street Control, some chalk, and a blackboard far more user friendly. 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, br2975 said:

Having had the basics of CPC explained to me by a very patient Bob Masterman, in whose department at Marland House it was then located ( and once 'used' ) - all those 'binary style' digits would have, no,  did have me totally bewildered. 

.

Being a dinosaur, I would have found the one time regular phone calls to Queen Street Control, some chalk, and a blackboard far more user friendly. 

Although the Control had by then I believe moved to Marland House I'm with you on that one Brian - CPC did nothing at all to replace the traditional yard stour (of what was in the yard and where it was, albeit generalised by wagon types for empties and by destination/some other details for loads) although that was part of the aim.  But it required continuous positive reporting plus an inbuilt check in order to work properly and, unlike TOPS, it didn't offer that.  Hence it very rapidly fell into disrepute with Controllers who were continually finding that the information they got from it was incorrect.

 

I came onto the South Wales scene nearly a decade later but anybody who heard it mentioned, especially through an innocent question about its capabilities ,quickly responded in very uncomplimentary terms whereas many appreciated the far simpler ATI system - which didn't rely on a computer.  I don't think CPC was necessarily a bad idea - in fact as far as empties were concerned it was the opposite - but it never lived up to its promise.