Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

post-13650-0-56371300-1424704516_thumb.jpg

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

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.