Jump to content

ThePurplePrimer

Wagons - to carry 10.0.0 - tare 6.4.0 - what does it all mean ?

Recommended Posts

Hi guys

 

Reading about various wagons at the moment and see these markings on them

 

Now I can work out ' to carry ' will mean the capacicity (I assume in tons ) but why 3 figures ?

 

I also think I know what 'tare' is - the unloaded weight yes ? - but again why would there be 3 figures for that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Tons, hundredweights (112 lbs), and quarters(28 lbs), I think the quarters measure got dropped in later years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your assumptions are correct: Tare = unladen weight. The three figures were just for precision. There were 28 pounds (lb) in a quarter, four quarters in a hundredweight (cwt; 112lb), twenty hundredweight in a ton (2240lb).

 

Considering that no-one was that bothered when the wagons were being loaded, such precision seems a waste of time!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think on this ......... in a coal train you may have a rake of say 50 in number mineral wagons.

.

Each is to be loaded with coal consigned from colliery to dockside.

.

The railway is paid for the carriage by the ton per mile.

.

Bearing in mind BR was operating almost 300,000 16 ton mineral wagons of varying types and moving millions of tons of coal per annum you can understand why as an exact a weighing method as possible in

 tons / hundredweights / quarters was so important.

.

Brian R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And having gone through hundreds of weigh-bills, I can say that with certain customers, they were only a very rough guide; the ones for 16t minerals loaded with scrap that I checked were generally about three or four tons over the rated capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the early years of the C20 when rail borne traffic was at its peak, roughly half of the wagons in service were PO minerals of various sorts – over 500,000 of them. In most cases they would have been weighed before departure in which case the tare weight would have been essential for charging purposes.

 

That said, I've not seen the load quoted in anything but whole tons, though I understand some BR wagons were marked for half-tons (eg 24.5) – after my period!

 

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the early years of the C20 when rail borne traffic was at its peak, roughly half of the wagons in service were PO minerals of various sorts – over 500,000 of them. In most cases they would have been weighed before departure in which case the tare weight would have been essential for charging purposes.

 

That said, I've not seen the load quoted in anything but whole tons, though I understand some BR wagons were marked for half-tons (eg 24.5) – after my period!

 

 

Richard

Anyone who trusted the tare weight for a rate based on ton miles was not to be trusted.  If you are loading for a ton mileage rate ideally the wagons should first be tare weighed and then weighed loaded.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who trusted the tare weight for a rate based on ton miles was not to be trusted.  If you are loading for a ton mileage rate ideally the wagons should first be tare weighed and then weighed loaded.

At Betteshanger in the 1980s the wagons were weighed before and after loading to calculate the load on the train.  I can see Peter now with a big old calculating machine doing the sums.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic but this thread has brought back memories of the 'good old days' when 'life was simple', it's worth bearing in mind that when I started work in the late '60's ( less than 50 years ago), there were 112 pounds in a hundredweight, twenty hundredweight to the ton.

 

In monetary terms there were 12 pennies to the shilling and 20 shillings to the pound.

 

There were twelve inches to the foot, three feet to the yard.

 

My first work was working up bills of quantities for a building firm which involved multiplying pages and pages of items such as 12 tons, 3 hundredweight and 12 pounds of reinforcing steel by its cost of five pounds three shillings and sixpence per ton, or yards feet and inches of timber at rates of pounds shillings and pence per yard.

 

Similarly the weights of coal and freight carried by rail had to be costed manually, i doubt I could even remember how to do it nowadays.

 

And all of this without electronic calculators, who says modern life is complicated?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic but this thread has brought back memories of the 'good old days' when 'life was simple', it's worth bearing in mind that when I started work in the late '60's ( less than 50 years ago), there were 112 pounds in a hundredweight, twenty hundredweight to the ton.

 

In monetary terms there were 12 pennies to the shilling and 20 shillings to the pound.

 

There were twelve inches to the foot, three feet to the yard.

 

My first work was working up bills of quantities for a building firm which involved multiplying pages and pages of items such as 12 tons, 3 hundredweight and 12 pounds of reinforcing steel by its cost of five pounds three shillings and sixpence per ton, or yards feet and inches of timber at rates of pounds shillings and pence per yard.

 Though there were ready-reckoners, and Laxton's Building Price Book...

Similarly the weights of coal and freight carried by rail had to be costed manually, i doubt I could even remember how to do it nowadays.

 

And all of this without electronic calculators, who says modern life is complicated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't just the railway company that wanted to know how much was in the wagon, but also the customer who was paying for it.

 

And tare weights are interesting as they could vary over the life of the wagon, usually reducing as the wood and ironwork got worn away by abrasion from the load, rust etc. And fitting a second set of brakes could make a considerable difference to the tare weight. It is interesting to see that with the successive RCH standards tare weights tended to increase, even though it was onlt with the 1923 standard that 12 ton loads became common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't just the railway company that wanted to know how much was in the wagon, but also the customer who was paying for it.

 

And tare weights are interesting as they could vary over the life of the wagon, usually reducing as the wood and ironwork got worn away by abrasion from the load, rust etc. And fitting a second set of brakes could make a considerable difference to the tare weight. It is interesting to see that with the successive RCH standards tare weights tended to increase, even though it was onlt with the 1923 standard that 12 ton loads became common.

The painted tare would be checked, and re-done if necessary, whenever a wagon visited a wagon works. The old tare was supposed to be obliterated, but some photos show this wasn't always done, with wagons carrying several tare weights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The painted tare would be checked, and re-done if necessary, whenever a wagon visited a wagon works. The old tare was supposed to be obliterated, but some photos show this wasn't always done, with wagons carrying several tare weights.

Just as well some wagons also carried several numbers then - a tare weight for each number!

 

And yes - when wagons were being 'captured' for TOPS records it wasn't all that unusual to find one with different numbers the most common error being a different painted number on each side although it could get really confusing when neither of the painted numbers agreed with the plated number, a fairly rare occurrence I was told.  However the rarest of all was to common across a wagon with 4 different numbers as it had not only different painted numbers but also different plated numbers and no two were the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not forgetting the chain! 22 yards, still used by the Pway Department today. It was useful when I was working the IWSR Beer Tent few years back when all the beers were £2.20 a pint. The PWay worked out the price long before the bar staff!

  • Like 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just the PWay with chains. The Sectional Appendix that is used by Control and drivers is also in miles and chains.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just the PWay with chains. The Sectional Appendix that is used by Control and drivers is also in miles and chains.

Mile & chains are the officially recognised measures of mileage on British railways - in accordance with an REU issued document (my predecessor in my final big railway job wrote to the Commission and asked them recognise the use of miles & chains for that purpose and they agreed.  It's not an EU Directive as such but it's not too far short of one.  And I've always founds miles and chains very easy distance measurements to work with in a railway context - nice simple maths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how many can 'throw out a chain' ?

.

Took me a while ( in a former life ) to master the art.

.

We employed a 'chain man' when carrying out surveys - albeit he generally held the ranging rods and the levelling staff.

.

Brian R

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to drag this thread up from the depths, I understand what a tare wight is on a wagon.

 

This might be be one of the most stupid questions I post on here! 

 

But... why did they vary so much from vehicle to vehicle? I've been looking through my wagon books and noticed that BR standard box vans had tare weights of 7-4, 7-11, 7-6 etc. Was it just down to the density of the material? I've noticed similarities on BR built steel mineral wagons, essentially the same diagram of vehicle.  

 

Best wishes and many thanks in advance!

 

Nick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Brinkly said:

Sorry to drag this thread up from the depths, I understand what a tare wight is on a wagon.

 

This might be be one of the most stupid questions I post on here! 

 

But... why did they vary so much from vehicle to vehicle? I've been looking through my wagon books and noticed that BR standard box vans had tare weights of 7-4, 7-11, 7-6 etc. Was it just down to the density of the material? I've noticed similarities on BR built steel mineral wagons, essentially the same diagram of vehicle.  

 

Best wishes and many thanks in advance!

 

Nick.

I could be that repairs were carried out using thicker material than the original, or that old sides were left in place, and the patch was welded over the top. Then there were unfitted wagons which had been intended to be fitted, and so had six extra brake shoes in comparison with a 'standard' 1/108 mineral, along with the trunnions for mounting the vac-cylinders.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brinkly said:

Sorry to drag this thread up from the depths, I understand what a tare wight is on a wagon.

 

This might be be one of the most stupid questions I post on here! 

 

But... why did they vary so much from vehicle to vehicle? I've been looking through my wagon books and noticed that BR standard box vans had tare weights of 7-4, 7-11, 7-6 etc. Was it just down to the density of the material? I've noticed similarities on BR built steel mineral wagons, essentially the same diagram of vehicle.  

 

Best wishes and many thanks in advance!

 

Nick.

The diameter of the wheels would affect the tare weight, a pair of 'new' (full-size) wheelsets weighing more than a pair that were almost at scrapping size. Timber varies significantly in density, joinery quality being heavier than carcassing.

Regards,

Martin

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And replacing buffers would have had an effect as well.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks gents, that now makes more sense. 

 

I can get back to applying the transfers now, knowing that I don't have to worry about having a limited number of 7s!

 

Kind regards,


Nick.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don’t understand hundredweight. I can just about get my head around the concept of a short hundred (100) and a long hundred (120), but a hundredweight seems to relate to neither of those

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.