RMweb Premium corneliuslundie Posted February 23, 2015 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 23, 2015 I have played around with the photo to try to get some dimensions, notably by distorting it using the Perspective and Shear functions in Gimp until the visible wheel is round. On this basis I estimate the body to be 10ft 2in long and the wheelbase to be 5ft 6.5in. These are pretty approximate as there is a bit of guesswork in estimating the top of the wheel and the exact points at which to measure. This is less than I estimates roughly by eye, but I suspect my thinking was that 7ft was about the minimum likely wheelbase. Any thoughts? Re the possible hole for a stanchion, yes a possibility though it is such a small mark on the photo I wouldn't want to stake my life on it. It would make sense though, as otherwise rails would have a lot of room to slide around. Jonathan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poggy1165 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I wonder if the chalked number on the end was placed there for the same reason that certain railway companies (notably the LNWR) always painted a number in that position - for ease of recognition for shunters and loaders. In some locations a number on the side was not as visible to the workforce as one on the ends. (I suspect this working convenience led to the trend to having painted numbers part way up the side in preference to - or in addition to - cast numberplates on the solebar.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londontram Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I wonder if the chalked number on the end was placed there for the same reason that certain railway companies (notably the LNWR) always painted a number in that position So did the Caledonian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium corneliuslundie Posted February 23, 2015 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 23, 2015 Also the Cambrian (and not on the side) and the GWR. In the case of the Cambrian it makes identifying vehicles in photos very hard. Jonathan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I have played around with the photo to try to get some dimensions, notably by distorting it using the Perspective and Shear functions in Gimp until the visible wheel is round. On this basis I estimate the body to be 10ft 2in long and the wheelbase to be 5ft 6.5in. These are pretty approximate as there is a bit of guesswork in estimating the top of the wheel and the exact points at which to measure. This is less than I estimates roughly by eye, but I suspect my thinking was that 7ft was about the minimum likely wheelbase. Any thoughts? Re the possible hole for a stanchion, yes a possibility though it is such a small mark on the photo I wouldn't want to stake my life on it. It would make sense though, as otherwise rails would have a lot of room to slide around. Jonathan Jonathan, for major dimensions I think it likely the Victorians would have stuck with straightforward measurement. So 5' 6" for the wheelbase and 10' overall might well be right. The "usual" height for buffers was 3' 6" above the rail head so your shorter wb suggestion would also seem to fit, rather than 7'. Were these wagons designed for colliery use? If so short wheelbase and "flexibility" when couple might have been important when carrying long items. Jol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.