Single or double braked?

[Spitfire2865]

Hello everyone. Quick question. Not entirely sure if this wagon is single or double braked. It looks single but I cant fully tell from the angle of the photo. Maybe any of you could help me.

I do not own this photo.

[69843]

Looks to be double, as there is the faintest bit of brake shoe visible on the rear axle

 

Edit: Picture tweaked with Photoshop to show the second shoe

[69843]

Right, i think I misinterpreted the question...

 

It would appear to only have brake gear on the nearside, so I'd say single braked.

 

 

(One of the above will be right!)

[The Bigbee Line]

The wagon has brakes (2 blocks) on one side.  The two vee hangers on one side are the indicator that there is no lever on the other side.

[Boris]

That's interesting I've never seen that configuration on brakes before, I've seen wagons with one shoe on each side, but never two shoes on one side and nothing on the other.  As horsemen generally worked from the left in the UK this would have been a little more challenging to shunt one way as the brake lever is effectively the wrong way round.  I was going to make a comment about the difficulties trying to apply the handbrake against a platform face, but then remembered that's what sprags are for!

[buffalo]

Definitely a single-sided brake. This was the norm on PO wagons prior to the BoT requirement of November 1911 for new builds to be fitted with either-side brakes. Repaired wagons built before this date continued to carry single-sided brakes for long after.

 

...The two vee hangers on one side are the indicator that there is no lever on the other side.

 

No, that would only be the case with Morton brakes where the cross-shaft needs only to be supported by one V-hanger on each side. After the 1911 ruling, the norm for PO wagons was to fit independent brakes using identical parts on each side. Such wagons typically have two V-hangers on each side. Initially, the wagon companies used their own designs, but the independent either-side design was perpetuated in the RCH 1923 design which was produced up to WW2.

 

Nick

 

ps. Boris' point about the difficulties (and dangers) of shunting with single-sided brakes were a large part of the reasoning behind the BoT ruling.

[Spitfire2865]

Thanks everyone. So most likely even towards the end if its life it would still have single sided brakes.

[bbishop]

Without reading the three plates, one can't be certain whether Russell had purchased the wagon or had acquired it on a leasing arrangement. If the latter, then typically seven years, after which the wagon could be returned, purchased or another lease taken out. So I would be comfortable with the livery as shown for the period 1910 - 1917, then less comfortable year on year through to 1931.

 

Thereafter, well who knows? Small traders found that 8 ton was a convenient wagon size. Also there were pits which could only accept five plank wagons (some in the Somerset coalfield, for example). So there is a good chance that our wagon was still extant when the private owner wagons were pooled in 1939, but six years of high mileage and minimal maintenance would mean an early culling once peace was declared.

 

Bill

[Spitfire2865]

Without reading the three plates, one can't be certain whether Russell had purchased the wagon or had acquired it on a leasing arrangement. If the latter, then typically seven years, after which the wagon could be returned, purchased or another lease taken out. So I would be comfortable with the livery as shown for the period 1910 - 1917, then less comfortable year on year through to 1931.Thereafter, well who knows? Small traders found that 8 ton was a convenient wagon size. Also there were pits which could only accept five plank wagons (some in the Somerset coalfield, for example). So there is a good chance that our wagon was still extant when the private owner wagons were pooled in 1939, but six years of high mileage and minimal maintenance would mean an early culling once peace was declared.Bill

Im going for around 1930-36 so Im comfortable assuming it stayed single sided. Itll add a bit of diversity in my stock.

[Boris]

Thanks everyone. So most likely even towards the end if its life it would still have single sided brakes.

Not necessarily, it's easy enough to add another set of shoes (independently operated) and this was a common arrangement, as stated the BoT were quite keen to get a handbrake on each side of wagons.

[The Bigbee Line]

Not necessarily, it's easy enough to add another set of shoes (independently operated) and this was a common arrangement, as stated the BoT were quite keen to get a handbrake on each side of wagons.

The BoT were keen, but they weren't paying.  POs were notoriously tight with their brass.

[Spitfire2865]

Ok then. Half are saying yes and half are saying no. Im confused.

[Boris]

Ok then. Half are saying yes and half are saying no. Im confused.

If you look at the number of wagons BR inherited in 1948 they were probably confused as well.  I think it's one of those things where there probably isn't a guaranteed definitive answer, it's just a matter of numbers.  Wasn't it something like 750,000 items of rolling stock they acquired in 1948, I can't remember the exact figure but it's mind blowing.

[MarkAustin]

A brief summary of the either side brake situation.

 

The BoT in 1911 issued an order compelling the use of brakes on either side of a wagon. Bizarely, there was a requirement that it could only be taken off on the side it was applied, which would have outlawed the DC brake of the GWR. They took them to court and got a partial suspension of this requirement. There was a grace period for the conversion: 10 years if you had less than 3,00 wagon, 15 for les than 20,00, and 20 for over that. Hence in theory all wagons by law should have had a brake on both  sides by 1931. In practice the various companies, including PO operaters dragged their feet and fought in the courts. By the mid 1920s, a final deadline of 1939 (IIRC) was agreed. The GWR at least started mass conversion of their single side braked wagons by the mid to late 1920s, and it was in full swing by the mid 1930s. This was done by fitting a single independent brake operating on the LH wheel only on the hitherto unbraked side, and this was not uncommon, though as PO wagon builders already had the parts for twin brakes they tended to fit those.

 

Dependeding on whether they expected the wagon to be worth repairing by 1939, most would have been dealt with by then, but the immenece, and then outbreak, of war slowed the process, and some---but not many may have survived the war.

 

Therefor, you can assume than most wagons built with brakes on one side only would still be that way by 1929, but that by 1935-36 most would either have been converted, or earmarked for scrapping.

 

Mark Austin

[wagonman]

Hello everyone. Quick question. Not entirely sure if this wagon is single or double braked. It looks single but I cant fully tell from the angle of the photo. Maybe any of you could help me.

I do not own this photo.image.jpg

 

As has been stated, this is a case of 2 shoes on one side only – rather confusingly the railway companies referred to this as "double brakes". As the wagon appears to carry a Birmingham owner's plate I would assume it was on deferred payments. When the merchant ceased trading in 1931 the wagon would have been sold – if bought by a wagon co it would almost certainly have been given a second set of brakes (assuming it hadn't already been fitted) prior to being sold on. So, given your 1930-36 period most likely it would have had two sets of brakes – and a new livery of course.

[Spitfire2865]

Hmm. Maybe Ill do the original livery with both sides braked. If I get sick of it, Ill make up my own livery. 

[Nick Holliday]

The original BoT directives were intended to ensure that there were brake LEVERS on both sides of the wagon, so that whichever side the brakesman or guard was on, the brakes could be applied and subsequently released.  The reaction of the railway companies was to fit a second lever on the far side, and the simplest arrangement was with a cross-rod between v-hangers.  This meant that the lever was now at the left-hand end of the wagon, and not where the guard might expect it.  The BoT took a dim view of that, and in 1905 made them install levers on the right-hand end.  To do this on an existing wagon meant doing one of two options - adding a complete set of independent brake gear on the second side, or installing a clutch-type mechanism, such as the Morton system, which reversed the direction of the movement of the cross rod.  The former solution would have to be adopted if the wagon had doors in the floor, as the cross rod would interfere with them.  I wonder if it was actually cheaper to do this than fit the clutch or lift link mechanism, as the existing brake gear would have to be entirely rebuilt, and perhaps maintenance came into it too.

I suspect for mechanical reasons, it was the norm for the clutch to be on the side of the brake gear itself, so the arrangements of push rods had to be reversed to make sure that pushing the brake lever down actually applied the brake blocks to the wheels.  This is something that manufacturers and modellers sometimes have difficulty getting right.  Intriguingly, given the implied emphasis on having brake gear on both sides of the wagon in the 1911 instructions, thousands of the steel mineral wagons built after the war were fitted only with double brakes on one side, with just the lever on the other, obviously not those with bottom doors though.  Have a look at Paul Bartlett's website or the thread on RMweb on 16 ton wagons to see plenty of examples, and check out where the Morton clutch is and the arrangements of the brake push rods in some of the latter photos.

[Spitfire2865]

The chassis has bottom doors so I guess its brakes on both sides.

[bbishop]

I suspect for mechanical reasons, it was the norm for the clutch to be on the side of the brake gear itself, so the arrangements of push rods had to be reversed to make sure that pushing the brake lever down actually applied the brake blocks to the wheels.

However, the North Eastern Railway, for one, had the clutch on the other side.

 

Bill

[bbishop]

The chassis has bottom doors so I guess its brakes on both sides.

Sorry, but I can't see any mechanism to open bottom doors, and I don't think a purveyor of household coal would go to the expense of fitting them. The coal would be shovelled out of the side doors, either onto a cart or into pens.

 

The wagon may well have reached Valhalla with brakes on one side only. If it was rebuilt, then it would have had a second set; it would not have received any form of cross lever gear. Whilst it may have been cheaper to fit a cross lever brake to a new build, it would have been more expensive to replace an existing brake system.

 

Bill

[Spitfire2865]

Sorry, but I can't see any mechanism to open bottom doors, and I don't think a purveyor of household coal would go to the expense of fitting them. The coal would be shovelled out of the side doors, either onto a cart or into pens.The wagon may well have reached Valhalla with brakes on one side only. If it was rebuilt, then it would have had a second set; it would not have received any form of cross lever gear. Whilst it may have been cheaper to fit a cross lever brake to a new build, it would have been more expensive to replace an existing brake system.Bill

I meant the chassis Im using. It will be modeled full so it wont be visible anyway.

Im thinking maybe now just doing an imaginary livery in memory of my grandfather who was the reason I love trains.

Anyone have any suggestions on a home location?

[bbishop]

I meant the chassis Im using. It will be modeled full so it wont be visible anyway.

Im thinking maybe now just doing an imaginary livery in memory of my grandfather who was the reason I love trains.

Anyone have any suggestions on a home location?

Give us a name and we may be able to find you a real livery.

 

Bill

[Spitfire2865]

Give us a name and we may be able to find you a real livery.Bill

Well his name was Raymond A. Young. Ive already looked up anything with the name young and Ive come up empty handed. If there are any areas around the midland region which were heavy on coal I could assume it was a small company.

I was thinking

R.A.Young

Coal (merchant?)

No. 65(for bday m/d) (Location?)

[Nick Holliday]

However, the North Eastern Railway, for one, had the clutch on the other side.

 

Bill

Thanks for pointing that out, Bill.  Although I have several books on NE wagons I hadn't noticed this particular detail, and none of the writers considered it worth mentioning! I did a quick check through various wagon books and the only other line I could find that had the "clutch" on the blind side, as it were, was the SECR, which actually used a lifting link arrangement to reverse the motion.  It was interesting to see those companies that tried to get by with, initially, the left handed lever, which was the quickest and simplest option, before the BoT got wind of it.  Some, such as the Midland, LNWR and LBSCR seem to have chosen the other simple route - adding a completely separate set of brakes on the other side, and only using the Morton clutch when the wagon was fitted with air or vacuum brakes, with all four wheels braked at once. Although perhaps more expensive, the maintenance of independent brakes would be simpler, and there would be no patent fees, that's if Mr Morton and the L&YR actually demanded them.

The GWR, typically, obscured things with their various DC braking arrangements and legal cases, although I haven't yet been able to find any photos of the single brake shoe on the second side that Mark mentioned, although I have found a few PO wagons so fitted.  The various Scottish companies, though, appear to have lagged behind their Sassenach cousins, and were still building new wagons with just single brakes into the 20th century, and their response to the BoT was to just put another single brake on the other side!