Wright writes.....

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, jrg1 said:

In all the posts regarding the merits of heavy goods locomotives, why has there been no mention of the GWR 47xx class?  

Fast, powerful, versatile and at home on heavy mixed traffic-and only nine were ever built.

Perhaps because they were few in number and they weren't really 'heavy goods' engines but very much 'heavy mixed traffic' as an enlargement of the 43XX 2-6-0.  But they were very much the GWR's 'fast/fitted freight' engine as a more powerful supplement to the 43XX 2-6-0s (and thus a very different idea from the 28XX which was  a 'heavy freight/mineral' engine of the lower speed variety) as they were intended to work the fast and vacuum fitted services although they were all too quickly overshadowed by the 'Halls' which were suited to a much wider range of mixed traffic work than the 47XX.

 

And the 47XX were not much liked by enginemen compared with many other GW engines - with the lever reverse Drivers had a tendency to be less willing to notch them up so they often proved hard work for Firemen, especially on Summer Saturday passenger turns and they didn't ride as well at any sort of speed unlike the far better riding 4-6-0s.  But when all that is said and done they lasted as long as w enough work existed for them.  However it is interesting to note that they shared quite a few route restrictions with the 9Fs and there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever about which was far and away the better engine out of those two - as Tony has already noted.

6 hours ago, chrisf said:

 

It seems that Canton regarded "Evening Star" as at least the equal of a Britannia.  There must have been red faces when she arived at Paddington 20 minutes early on the up "Red Dragon" and not just because passengers were still eating their lunch.  The schedule of 180 minutes for the 145 miles from Cardiff to Paddington was a joke.

 

Chris

Yes, the timings were pretty slack but then things were very different back then and maximum speeds were still relatively restricted.  as it happens one of my past supervisors was the man who put 92220 on 'The Red Dragon' when he was a Panel (i.e relief stepped up from Driver) Foreman at Canton on a day when they literally ran out of suitable engines to work the train.  So he said to the other Foreman on duty 'why not use the 92 - it's green and fairly clean' so that was what happened.  Canton men were I think fairly happy with 9Fs, which were the subject of rather mixed feelings at various sheds (and not just on the WR) because of the way they needed to be fired to get the best out of them.

 

And not difficult to regard 92220 as at least the equal of a Brit as they had a mixed reputation at Canton.  They had resented being lumbered with the Brits - some said more 'Castles' would have been much preferred) by their DMPS (District Motive Power Superintendent) who was of course anyway based at Ebbw Junction at that time and who had sat at a Superintendents' conference listening to his colleagues bemoaning the Brits and had said that he would gladly take them, so he got them.   Even at Canton the left hand drive was far from universally popular for various reasons (as was the case at other Western sheds) and the Milton derailment didn't add to their reputation although at least it got the smoke deflector handrails removed and replaced by hand holds.    The main thing iI remember about them from a lineside perspective was the amount of slipping which took place when trying to start a Down train away from Reading, it occasionally got quite spectacular.

 

The Milton derailment Report should anyone be interested -

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Milton1955.pdf

[Denbridge]

8 minutes ago, New Haven Neil said:

Hmm, have avoided writing this up until now as I can't currently find my reference, but was it not the case that the Q7 pulled it's own train AND pushed that of the 28xx and the 28 in question that had run out of steam on those afore mentioned exchanges?  I'm sure I have it in a book somwhere!

 

Nevertheless I'm a big 9F fan.  There is a quote in Gerry Fienne's book 'I Tried to Run a Railway' about a 9F doing over 90 with him in the train as General Manager of the Eastern Region IIRC.

It isnt something I can ever recall reading on a subject I've long found fascinating. Aside from the unlikely event of this happening, there is the point that no Q7's were featured in the trials.

[Allegheny1600]

 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

But clearly derived from its elder brethren, and IIRC basically the same motor.

 

No, I'm pretty sure the 66 has a 710 engine and the 59 has a 645 engine. (those numbers mean swept volume in cubic inches per cylinder!)

 

As well as that, ISTR the 59 was built up to a specification and the 66 built down to a price (which included volume discount as well as EMD's sweeteners for opening up the European market - in which they were very successful!)

[The Stationmaster]

And I very much doubt know that two 66s could not do what we did with two 59s and shift a 12,000 ton (N.B. real tons, not those metric wimp things) trailing load up a 1 in 330 gradient.  A shame we never got to the 1 in 145 which could have been very interesting but alas despite all the precautions we had taken a coupling hook broke so our trial run came to a premature end.  And no problems getting a 5,000 ton trailing load (plus a dead 59) up 1 in 138 on curved track with a wet rail but it did need the super creep to do it.   

 

However we did hang 2,500 tons behind a 9F at Merehead Quarry on one very secretive occasion and it shifted that load with no trouble at all, not even a slip as it first got hold of the train.

[New Haven Neil]

14 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

It isnt something I can ever recall reading on a subject I've long found fascinating. Aside from the unlikely event of this happening, there is the point that no Q7's were featured in the trials.

 

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

 

1921 Trials, Perth Edinburgh freight trials, Q7, 28xx and J37 classes.  C J Allen, 'Locomotive Exchanges', 1949, pictured on P49.  However this book does not have the quote about the 28 being pushed by the Q7, I can't find that currently.  It does state (although admittedly in unscientific terms) the Q7 performed better than the 28, which slipped to a halt in poor weather, on p35.

Edited October 25, 2019 by New Haven Neil
Spelling

[jamie92208]

IIRC, the 59 was Ed Burkhadt's starting point for the 66. Obviously 5he 710 engine was put in i stead of the 645. However  he wanted a lo ger eange so a larger fuel ta k was fitted. To keep the weight down they fitted lighter weight traction morors and a lighter weight alternator. It was definitely  built down to a spec.

As to the 90 mph 9F's I also read Gerry Fiennes' account of his 90 mph teip down Stoke Bank with Bill Hoole at the regulator. I have also read somewhere about 92220's explouts on the Red Dragon. Apparently the piston speed terrified the powers that ve with 8 revs per second.

 

Jamie

[Denbridge]

14 minutes ago, New Haven Neil said:

 

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

 

1921 Trials, Perth Edinburgh freight trials, Q7, 28xx and J37 classes.  C J Allen, 'Locomotive Exchanges', 1949, pictured on P49.  However this book does not have the quote about the 28 being pushed by the Q7, I can't find that currently.  It does state (although admittedly in unscientific terms) the Q7 performed better than the 28, which slipped to a halt in poor weather, on p35.

With respect, I wasn't mistaken. The thread was mentioning the 1948 trials. I find this interesting and will certainly find out more about these 1921 trials. The Q7's  were superb machined but in no way could they be described as superior to a 28 which was a far more modern and efficient machine.  The fact that they have often been described as being at least 20 years ahead of their time in engineering and design terms also explains why they were still the front line GWR heavy freight locomotive at the outbreak of WW2. In essence Swindon didn't need a new design, when they already had the perfect tools for the job.

[MJI]

1 hour ago, New Haven Neil said:

Hmm, have avoided writing this up until now as I can't currently find my reference, but was it not the case that the Q7 pulled it's own train AND pushed that of the 28xx and the 28 in question that had run out of steam on those afore mentioned exchanges?  I'm sure I have it in a book somwhere!

 

Nevertheless I'm a big 9F fan.  There is a quote in Gerry Fienne's book 'I Tried to Run a Railway' about a 9F doing over 90 with him in the train as General Manager of the Eastern Region IIRC.

 

 

 

I have heard about a stalled 66 on a bank being rescued by a following 60 with its own train.

[johndon]

Here's a 9F on it's own coal train pushing a Class 24 with an iron ore train at South Pelaw Junction:

 

 

Photo copyright Bill Watson.

 

[grahame]

14 minutes ago, johndon said:

Here's a 9F on it's own coal train pushing a Class 24 with an iron ore train at South Pelaw Junction:

 

 

 

 

Interesting and a nice head on view, although the type 2 train is very short and the wagons appear to be empty. Also there seems to be diesel exhaust/fumes from the loco.

[johndon]

19 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Interesting and a nice head on view, although the type 2 train is very short and the wagons appear to be empty. Also there seems to be diesel exhaust/fumes from the loco.

 

I'm not sure if the 24 had, effectively, got stuck as the 40 waiting alongside is there to bank it.  I've not been able to find out if the wagons were empty or not - the density of the iron ore changed depending on where it came and, with the heaviest stuff, fully loaded wagons (56T each) could appear empty from this angle.

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, bbishop said:

 

I did the stats many moons ago.  Excluding  mineral wagons, the percentages in 1930 were: LMS 44%, LNER 33%, COR 17%, SR 6%.  This barely changed over grouping with the SR nudging up at the expense of the northern companies.  A couple of facts:  at grouping, most companies had about 10% of their wagons comprising covered vans; but this was 20% for the LSWR, many of which were fitted for the Southampton Docks traffic.  Then the L&Y was possibly the most progressive railway for wagon design and construction.

 

Bill

 

ps: COR = certain other railway.

 

If I've understood that correctly, these are the percentages owned by each company of the total fitted stock running at the time? (Seeing as that was the point at issue.) However I'm confused by "excluding mineral wagons" which would be most unlikely to be fitted anyway.

 

Tatlow, op cit., gives the proportions of total wagon stock for 1931 as 42.6% : 39.6% : 12.6% : 5.1% excluding PO wagons - so the Great Western had a disproportionately high number of fitted wagons whereas the LNER proportion was on the low side (pace Headstock) - again explicable by the use of company rather than PO wagons for mineral traffic in the north east.

[t-b-g]

People are seemingly convinced that their favourite is "the best".

 

Each and every design has its shortcomings. In the case of the BR 9F, the return on the construction costs must have been poor as they were only in service a few years. They must have been just about the most expensive way to move goods around that there ever was. No doubt a good design but can they really be "the best"? Would they ever have lasted for 60 years of hard slog like some of the pre-grouping classes did? We shall never know now.

 

Kestrel? A white elephant nobody wanted or could find decent use for. Got sold off to the Russians.

 

28XX? If they were so good, why did they get overlooked twice when we needed freight locos in 2 world wars, in favour of quicker, cheaper to build and easier to maintain designs?

 

It is like saying a Rolls Royce is a better car than a Ford Focus. Not if you are hard up and need to get around as economically as possible it isn't. Perhaps it is if money is not a matter for concern. With the railways, it always was.

 

Overall, the most cost efficient, effective freight loco is probably a humble 0-6-0, like a Dean Goods, LNWR coal engine or a GER/LNER J15. 60 years service, no frills, reliable, cheap and easy to maintain in works or at local shed level. That Thompson adopted a 40 year old GCR design as the "new" LNER small goods loco speaks volumes. Does that make them the "best" freight locos ever? Of course not. They were the most numerous, the type built over them most years, from the dawn of railways up to the 1940s. Yet other types were stronger or faster. So they cannot be "the best".

 

Anybody who thinks they know which is "the best" is only really ever saying "it is my favourite" and there is nothing wrong with that until they start insisting their favourite is better than that of somebody else based on the facts that suit their case, ignoring those that don't. 

 

 

[Chamby]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

People are seemingly convinced that their favourite is "the best"..............

 

Anybody who thinks they know which is "the best" is only really ever saying "it is my favourite" and there is nothing wrong with that until they start insisting their favourite is better than that of somebody else based on the facts that suit their case, ignoring those that don't. 

 

Spoil sport!   And we were having such fun...   

[t-b-g]

11 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

Spoil sport!   And we were having such fun...   

 

It was getting a bit "My engine is bigger than your engine". "But my engine has bigger wheels than your engine".

[Tony Wright]

As promised, some shots of Little Bytham's freight/goods locos............................

 

As always, I'll credit the origins of each.

 

Apologies for the visual distortions caused by the necessity of using a wide-angle lens.

 

 

LB's five 9Fs. From left to right: Kitmaster/Comet/Crownline/Alexander. Built, painted and weathered by my elder son Tom when he was 15 (with a bit of help from me carving off the handrails and making the valve gear), 23 years ago: DJH, built by Roy Jackson, painted/weathered by Geoff Kent: Bachmann 9F, modified/detailed, weathered by me: Model Loco, built by me, painted and weathered by Geoff Haynes: DJH, builder unknown, painted by Larry Goddard, detailed by me and weathered by Geoff Haynes. 

 

 

The three LB Austerities. Clockwise: two DJH examples, built/painted/weathered by Tony Geary (a privilege to have such lovely, natural locos on my trainset): DJH, built, painted and weathered by me.

 

 

 

Five of LB's O2s (a sixth, an O2/2, is currently being borrowed by Geoff Haynes as a guide for a Heljan conversion for a customer). Top, then left to right: PDK O2/4, built and painted by me, weathered by Tom Wright: Nu-Cast O2/3, built, painted and weathered by me (very old): ACE (?) O2/2, built and painted by me, weathered by Tim Shackleton: Heljan O2/3, modified/detailed/renumbered by me, weathered by Geoff Haynes: Nu-Cast O2/1, started by Rob Kinsey, completed and painted by me, weathered by Geoff Haynes. 

 

 

Little Bytham's Robinson 2-8-0 family. Top, then left to right: Little Engines O4/1, builder unknown, mechanically rebuilt, detailed, painted and weathered by me: K's O4/2, built and painted by Rob Kinsey, weathered by me: Little Engines O4/3, built, painted and weathered by Tony Geary: Little Engines O4/7, built and painted by Rob Kinsey, weathered by me: O1; scratch-built, painted and weathered by me: Hornby O1, detailed, renumbered and weathered by me: K's O4/3, built, painted and weathered by me (very, very old): O4/8; part-scratch-built, painted and weathered by me. 

 

It's interesting to see how few RTR locos are in the collection. My choice, of course, and those that remain are destined to be sold-on because I never use them

 

A great user of ex-LNER 2-8-0s was the late, great Roy Jackson..............

 

 

What looks to be a Nu-Cast O2/1. That's me waving, to the right, by the way (though my school blazer was black, nor red)! 

 

 

And what looks to be a modified Bachmann O4/1 (though where the missing bits of the front number have gone, I've no idea!). 

 

Speaking of the great man, some bits and pieces of his have started to be sold on behalf of his family (nothing off Retford, as yet). 

 

 

 

I've acquired this, for the princely sum of £40.00! It was Roy's property, but not his work. It was built in EM from an ABS kit, and ran (if at all) like a bag of rusty spanners, powered by a creaky XO4. I've converted it to OO (heresy!), and with its Mashima motor and High Level gearbox it now runs beautifully. Why the bodywork is in such a state, I don't know, but I'll strip it, detail it and repaint it. 

[t-b-g]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

As promised, some shots of Little Bytham's freight/goods locos............................

 

As always, I'll credit the origins of each.

 

Apologies for the visual distortions caused by the necessity of using a wide-angle lens.

 

 

LB's five 9Fs. From left to right: Kitmaster/Comet/Crownline/Alexander. Built, painted and weathered by my elder son Tom when he was 15 (with a bit of help from me carving off the handrails and making the valve gear), 23 years ago: DJH, built by Roy Jackson, painted/weathered by Geoff Kent: Bachmann 9F, modified/detailed, weathered by me: Model Loco, built by me, painted and weathered by Geoff Haynes: DJH, builder unknown, painted by Larry Goddard, detailed by me and weathered by Geoff Haynes. 

 

 

The three LB Austerities. Clockwise: two DJH examples, built/painted/weathered by Tony Geary (a privilege to have such lovely, natural locos on my trainset): DJH, built, painted and weathered by me.

 

 

 

Five of LB's O2s (a sixth, an O2/2, is currently being borrowed by Geoff Haynes as a guide for a Heljan conversion for a customer). Top, then left to right: PDK O2/4, built and painted by me, weathered by Tom Wright: Nu-Cast O2/3, built, painted and weathered by me (very old): ACE (?) O2/2, built and painted by me, weathered by Tim Shackleton: Heljan O2/3, modified/detailed/renumbered by me, weathered by Geoff Haynes: Nu-Cast O2/1, started by Rob Kinsey, completed and painted by me, weathered by Geoff Haynes. 

 

 

Little Bytham's Robinson 2-8-0 family. Top, then left to right: Little Engines O4/1, builder unknown, mechanically rebuilt, detailed, painted and weathered by me: K's O4/2, built and painted by Rob Kinsey, weathered by me: Little Engines O4/3, built, painted and weathered by Tony Geary: Little Engines O4/7, built and painted by Rob Kinsey, weathered by me: O1; scratch-built, painted and weathered by me: Hornby O1, detailed, renumbered and weathered by me: K's O4/3, built, painted and weathered by me (very, very old): O4/8; part-scratch-built, painted and weathered by me. 

 

It's interesting to see how few RTR locos are in the collection. My choice, of course, and those that remain are destined to be sold-on because I never use them

 

A great user of ex-LNER 2-8-0s was the late, great Roy Jackson..............

 

 

What looks to be a Nu-Cast O2/1. That's me waving, to the right, by the way (though my school blazer was black, nor red)! 

 

 

And what looks to be a modified Bachmann O4/1 (though where the missing bits of the front number have gone, I've no idea!). 

 

Speaking of the great man, some bits and pieces of his have started to be sold on behalf of his family (nothing off Retford, as yet). 

 

 

 

I've acquired this, for the princely sum of £40.00! It was Roy's property, but not his work. It was built in EM from an ABS kit, and ran (if at all) like a bag of rusty spanners, powered by a creaky XO4. I've converted it to OO (heresy!), and with its Mashima motor and High Level gearbox it now runs beautifully. Why the bodywork is in such a state, I don't know, but I'll strip it, detail it and repaint it. 

 

What a lovely collection to have! I believe the missing number on the Bachmann O4 on Retford was because it was going to be renumbered. The last 2 digits got taken off the front but nobody ever got around to finishing the job. There were still some old O4 locos (based on the old Ks kit) that dated back to High Dyke and even Gainsborough Central days lurking around the GCR section. Possibly not up to modern standards in appearance, they still run superbly after some 40 years hard work. 

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I read today that GWR have just done it in 1 hour 33 minutes.

The Red Dragon loaded up to 14 bogies, 16 with assistance from Severn Tunnel to Stoke Gifford, with 7P power until it's very last year when Kings were available.  Stop at Newport and continuous climb from the bottom of the Severn Tunnel to Badminton, speed restrictions at Patchway, Wootton Bassett, and Reading.  The best HST timetable including the Newport stop was 103 minutes.  

 

GWR have not stated that the train stopped at Newport, but we are not comparing like for like.  The steam schedule moved about the same number of people from Cardiff to Paddington over a given time period as the HST did with shorter but more frequent trains.  The best pre-HST timetable, incorporating the easing of the speed restrictions mentioned above and timed for 90mph running, was achieved with class 47s and 9 bogies, with traction power lost to air conditioning; it would be interesting, but academic, to have seen what could have been achieved with an 8P steam loco with this load.  

 

This is not to decry GWR's 93 minute achievement, which is marvellous and something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime.  As the wires extend into South Wales and acceleration improves, even this could be beaten; my congratulations to GWR and Network Rail for this feat. 

[queensquare]

34 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

It was getting a bit "My engine is bigger than your engine". "But my engine has bigger wheels than your engine".

 

I never get involved in these discussions as my engines are almost always the smallest :-)

 

Jerry

[MarkC]

5 minutes ago, queensquare said:

 

I never get involved in these discussions as my engines are almost always the smallest :-)

 

Jerry

But it's not the size of your engine that matters - it's how the crew handle it...

 

Hat...coat...gone...

 

Mark

[Steamport Southport]

51 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

People are seemingly convinced that their favourite is "the best".

 

 

 

Nope. I'm going by what the MoS and WD picked as their engine of choice. The LMS 8F. Reliable, easy to maintain, efficient, modern, etc.

 

They then built a cheaper version in the WD 2-8-0 and 2-10-0s. If there wasn't so many of those built then I would have expected BR to have built a version as well.

 

If we're going by personal favourites then it's LNWR and L&YR 0-8-0s. As well as the GCR 2-8-0s, they all had their shortcomings, but looked right.

 

How about this wee beastie...

 

 

No. 12928 is a 7F 0-8-0, built by Hughes

Built 29 March 1919, withdrawn 6 September 1947

 

Photo from Wiki by Ben Brooksbank.

 

 

Jason

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Perhaps because they were few in number and they weren't really 'heavy goods' engines but very much 'heavy mixed traffic' as an enlargement of the 43XX 2-6-0.  But they were very much the GWR's 'fast/fitted freight' engine as a more powerful supplement to the 43XX 2-6-0s (and thus a very different idea from the 28XX which was  a 'heavy freight/mineral' engine of the lower speed variety) as they were intended to work the fast and vacuum fitted services although they were all too quickly overshadowed by the 'Halls' which were suited to a much wider range of mixed traffic work than the 47XX.

 

And the 47XX were not much liked by enginemen compared with many other GW engines - with the lever reverse Drivers had a tendency to be less willing to notch them up so they often proved hard work for Firemen, especially on Summer Saturday passenger turns and they didn't ride as well at any sort of speed unlike the far better riding 4-6-0s.  But when all that is said and done they lasted as long as w enough work existed for them.  However it is interesting to note that they shared quite a few route restrictions with the 9Fs and there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever about which was far and away the better engine out of those two - as Tony has already noted.

Yes, the timings were pretty slack but then things were very different back then and maximum speeds were still relatively restricted.  as it happens one of my past supervisors was the man who put 92220 on 'The Red Dragon' when he was a Panel (i.e relief stepped up from Driver) Foreman at Canton on a day when they literally ran out of suitable engines to work the train.  So he said to the other Foreman on duty 'why not use the 92 - it's green and fairly clean' so that was what happened.  Canton men were I think fairly happy with 9Fs, which were the subject of rather mixed feelings at various sheds (and not just on the WR) because of the way they needed to be fired to get the best out of them.

 

And not difficult to regard 92220 as at least the equal of a Brit as they had a mixed reputation at Canton.  They had resented being lumbered with the Brits - some said more 'Castles' would have been much preferred) by their DMPS (District Motive Power Superintendent) who was of course anyway based at Ebbw Junction at that time and who had sat at a Superintendents' conference listening to his colleagues bemoaning the Brits and had said that he would gladly take them, so he got them.   Even at Canton the left hand drive was far from universally popular for various reasons (as was the case at other Western sheds) and the Milton derailment didn't add to their reputation although at least it got the smoke deflector handrails removed and replaced by hand holds.    The main thing iI remember about them from a lineside perspective was the amount of slipping which took place when trying to start a Down train away from Reading, it occasionally got quite spectacular.

 

The Milton derailment Report should anyone be interested -

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Milton1955.pdf

I believe the handrail issue led to the handrails being removed and replaced with LMS style grab holes on the LMR's Brits.   I have often wondered why similar modifications were not needed on DoG or the 9Fs, which had fatter boilers and I would have thought even more restricted forward visibility for signal sighting.  The 9Fs were quite capable of timing South Wales-Paddington expresses, as the timetable was not particularly fast.  You could lose a bit on the Severn Tunnel-Badminton climb and easily make a right time or early arrival at Paddington.  In that sense they were certainly the 'equal of the Brits' at Canton.

[Mike 84C]

Thanks for all the input and interesting comments that have been made after my puzzlement remark about LNER  2-8-0 classes. And of course it has brought up interesting  facts on fitted wagon numbers etc;

  I think it was Headstock who commented on O4 disposal times being very quick. If that's because the disposal crews pulled the firebars out and pushed the fire through the ashpan, yes that's quick but I never saw it done on the Western.

The fire droppers always had their own individual long shovel and arms like my thighs!

  As for preperation  times I seem to remember a small engine was 45 minutes, a 4 cylinder was 1hr 15min and the rest were an hour.

  9fs did need a certain style of firing which involved keeping the back corners as full as possible which often meant scorched overalls even if you blacked the fire in under the, large door!,with slack or small coal. Several drivers at Banbury would let you drive one part of a trip if rostered  long firebox locos. I never got to drive a 9f on the main line!

  As for a Black 5  being an improved Hall, never in a month of Sundays. And  steam was not at its best when I was a fireman! Although there were exceptions.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

If I've understood that correctly, these are the percentages owned by each company of the total fitted stock running at the time? (Seeing as that was the point at issue.) However I'm confused by "excluding mineral wagons" which would be most unlikely to be fitted anyway.

 

Tatlow, op cit., gives the proportions of total wagon stock for 1931 as 42.6% : 39.6% : 12.6% : 5.1% excluding PO wagons - so the Great Western had a disproportionately high number of fitted wagons whereas the LNER proportion was on the low side (pace Headstock) - again explicable by the use of company rather than PO wagons for mineral traffic in the north east.

 

Not the total percentage of fitted stock, the total percentage of all stock owned by the big four.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Not the total percentage of fitted stock, the total percentage of all stock owned by the big four.

 

Ah, but it was your statement about the proportion of fitted stock owned by each of the grouping companies that I was really trying to get to the bottom of.