Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

The standard 42 gallon oil drum (wooden construction) or tierce, was used from the earliest days.  When filled with crude oil, the barrels weighed about 300 lbs, and were then viable to be manhandled by one man.  King Richard III defined a wine puncheon as a barrel holding 84 gallons, and the tierce as one holding 42 gallons.  The Worshipful Company of Coopers produced wooden casks in this size thereafter.

 

U.S. patents weren't issued for steel oil drums until 1902, though a viable barrel wasn't produced until 1904, so its probable that CA wouldn't have seen steel drums until at least 1910, if not until before WW1.  The patent was introduced by the delightfully named, 'Nelly Bly' a determined woman who ran The Iron Clad Manufacturing Company!  These were standardised at 55 gallons, and have the classic 'oil drum' appearance that we accept today as being the norm for oil drums.  The Standard Oil Company took to painting their barrels in blue, though there is some evidence that, from 1866, the wooden barrels were also painted in blue.

 

It was found to be more profitable to ship larger quantities in tanks, still wooden in construction, but the problem of leakage, more prevalent in the larger tanks of course, meant that production of the 'tierces' continued.  One feature of the 42 gallon wooden drum was that it could be rolled on its side with (relative!) ease, and directed where you wanted it to go!

 

The perfect answer.  Thank you.

 

Yes, it makes perfect sense that, in 1905 for a small-scale UK operation, it would be wooden barrels.

 

I cannot seem to find any indication of the external dimensions of a 42 gallon barrel or tierce, however.  I suspect I could base the size on steel oil drums.  

[Nearholmer]

Ever educational; I hadn't heard of Nellie Bly, and she seems to have been quite a woman.

 

So, why 55 US Gallons? Seems a very odd size to choose, unless you are copying a German 200L drum. Why not continue at 42USG?

 

Unfortunately, my GWR "boys book of how to load almost anything into railway wagons" omits barrels, which seems very strange. It does say that empty mineral oil barrels mustn't be put in with anything else, because they leave taint.

 

K

[Adams442T]

James,  you should be aware that the steel drums contain 55 gallons and will be some several inches taller, especially as they are basically a rolled cylinder, and not a barrel with the 'bilge' swelling across the centre line.

 

Hmmm, perhaps l could refer to myself as having a bilge line, so much better than Jane's term for it, which l won't go into....................

[Andy Hayter]

 

 

EDIT: We can probably discount the idea of a fireless loco.  Andrew Barclay don't seem to have started producing them until 1913, and Bagnall in 1923.  Would an oil-based site, such as a refinery, have employed spark arresters.  Would a barrier wagon be employed?

 

 

 

 

Given the size of the operation I would be surprised if anything more powerful than a Suffolk Punch would have been used for shunting.

[Edwardian]

 

 

EDIT: We can probably discount the idea of a fireless loco.  Andrew Barclay don't seem to have started producing them until 1913, and Bagnall in 1923.  Would an oil-based site, such as a refinery, have employed spark arresters.  Would a barrier wagon be employed?

 

 

 

 

Given the size of the operation I would be surprised if anything more powerful than a Suffolk Punch would have been used for shunting.

 

 

Yes, except they did have an engine shed and, apparently, a fireless locomotive!

 

That said, this was sometime in the period 1916-1920, and the suggestion on the Lynn forum is that the fireless Barclay was war-surplus from a munitions plant.  I readily concede that the lack of opportunities for bargains, such as that afforded by a glut of 'army surplus' equipment, might well have led a 1905 version of this operation to use horse power.

 

But until someone makes a convincing working model ...

[£1.38]

IIRC fireless locos were generally of German manufacture until the outbreak of WW1 when all their patents mysteriously expired, at least as far as the UK was concerned. Fireless could possibly also include early petrol or even battery power.

[DonB]

Quote:-

IIRC fireless locos were generally of German manufacture until the outbreak of WW1 when all their patents mysteriously expired, at least as far as the UK was concerned. Fireless could possibly also include early petrol or even battery power.

 

An alternative could have been Rope haulage as used underground and on inclines. Ley's Malleable Iron works (Derby) used a steam powered rope haulage system on their original single siding within the works until about 1921.

However, I think that it would only be suitable for virtually straight trackwork 

[BG John]

I think there were a couple of Orenstein & Koppel fireless locos in the UK in the early 1900s, so it's not impossible to have an earlier one.

[Edwardian]

I think there were a couple of Orenstein & Koppel fireless locos in the UK in the early 1900s, so it's not impossible to have an earlier one.

 

Most useful, thanks.

 

Is that as in Orenstein, Koppel & Betty?

[runs as required]

The Sottish shale industry museum's history page is interesting as it was flourishing at the turn of the C19-C20.

Says it reached its peak in 1912 before Churchill and the Brit Gov got into deals with the Persians/Iran for fuelling the Royal Navy.

Try clicking  Scottish Shale Industry images for some useful modelling ideas for CA.

 

It coalesced (pun) into National Benzol which became a subsidary of BP (i.e. Anglo Iranian, previously Anglo Persian)

dh

[Shadow]

The Champfleur shale mine/quarry had an 0-4-0ST from Barclay from 1878-1910, "The Stag".

 

https://www.scottishshale.co.uk/GazRail/ChampfleurieRail.html#ChampRail

Edited July 5, 2017 by Shadow

[Edwardian]

The Champfleur shale mine/quarry had an 0-4-0ST from Barclay from 1878-1910, "The Stag".

 

https://www.scottishshale.co.uk/GazRail/ChampfleurieRail.html#ChampRail

 

Shale Oil

 

Brilliant, thanks.

 

I note the website  suggests it might be the little Fella below.

 

Norfolk PO wagons

 

Turning back to local PO wagons, also below is a picture, posted by Mr Wealleans of this parish showing a 7mm model, possibly the POWsides/Slaters kit, in 7mm.  POWsides also produce the kit in 4mm.

 

This wagon was registered to the M&GNJ, which makes sense as Great Massingham was on the Lynn & Fakenham. I read somewhere that it was the only PO registered to the M&GNJ, though that seems a little hard to believe.

 

I don't know the build-date this wagon; please correct me if I'm wrong, but it has a RCH 1907 look to me. 

 

If anyone does know the date, I'd be grateful, because, as you may recall, the West Norfolk crosses and effects a junction with the M&GNJ in the vicinity of Massingham, and I have long hankered after a model of this wagon.

[Shadow]

One on ebay

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Dapol-OO-GAUGE-LIMITED-EDITION-P-SOFTLEY-7-PLANK-WAGON-2S-/191749624684?hash=item2ca52b136c:g:Pp4AAOSwxN5WXBxR

[Compound2632]

One on ebay

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Dapol-OO-GAUGE-LIMITED-EDITION-P-SOFTLEY-7-PLANK-WAGON-2S-/191749624684?hash=item2ca52b136c:g:Pp4AAOSwxN5WXBxR

 

O dear, o dear, no. About the only point of similarity to any PO wagon that P. Softley may have used is the use of the Roman alphabet.

 

Shale Oil

 

Brilliant, thanks.

 

I note the website  suggests it might be the little Fella below.

 

Norfolk PO wagons

 

Turning back to local PO wagons, also below is a picture, posted by Mr Wealleans of this parish showing a 7mm model, possibly the POWsides/Slaters kit, in 7mm.  POWsides also produce the kit in 4mm.

 

This wagon was registered to the M&GNJ, which makes sense as Great Massingham was on the Lynn & Fakenham. I read somewhere that it was the only PO registered to the M&GNJ, though that seems a little hard to believe.

 

I don't know the build-date this wagon; please correct me if I'm wrong, but it has a RCH 1907 look to me. 

 

If anyone does know the date, I'd be grateful, because, as you may recall, the West Norfolk crosses and effects a junction with the M&GNJ in the vicinity of Massingham, and I have long hankered after a model of this wagon.

 

Well, those James Ross & Co wagons certainly aren't to the RCH 1907 specification. As has been previously said, the 1907 spec brought together current good practice, so the P. Softley wagon could be OK for c. 1905 IF THAT'S WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKED LIKE. According to the Lightmoor Press index, one needs to refer to The Modeller's Sketchbook of Private Owner Wagons Book 3, by A. G. Thomas (1974) - out of print and generally unavailable - for the reference from which, one presumes, POWSides worked. Even then, I'm not sure you'd get a photograph. There seem to have been Softleys in Massingham from time immorial; one was landlord of The Railway Inn, Little Massingham, after the Great War.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Compound2632

[Shadow]

I have the first three books in that series. They only show outline drawings.

 

 

 

 

Book 1 is a signed copy with some additional notes.

 

 

[Edwardian]

O dear, o dear, no. About the only point of similarity to any PO wagon that P. Softley may have used is the use of the Roman alphabet.

 

 

Well, those James Ross & Co wagons certainly aren't to the RCH 1907 specification. As has been previously said, the 1907 spec brought together current good practice, so the P. Softley wagon could be OK for c. 1905 IF THAT'S WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKED LIKE. According to the Lightmoor Press index, one needs to refer to The Modeller's Sketchbook of Private Owner Wagons Book 3, by A. G. Thomas (1974) - out of print and generally unavailable - for the reference from which, one presumes, POWSides worked. Even then, I'm not sure you'd get a photograph. There seem to have been Softleys in Massingham from time immorial; one was landlord of The Railway Inn, Little Massingham, after the Great War.

 

I have the first three books in that series. They only show outline drawings.

 

IMG_20170705_191637.jpg

 

IMG_20170705_191702.jpg

 

 

Book 1 is a signed copy with some additional notes.

 

IMG_20170705_191722.jpg

 

IMG_20170705_191729.jpg

 

Thank you both.

 

I note the POWsides kit is for P Softley's No.2, whereas the Dapol wagon, which would be based on an RCH 1923 7-plank, is P Softley's No.11.  The M&GNJ survived Grouping as it was a joint line.  So, laying aside any deficiencies that Dapol tooling may have in representing 1923 RCH wagons, is it not possible that No.11 was a 1923 RCH wagon? 

 

As for No.2, I take the point that the POWsides wagon might be an approximation and that this might necessarily be the case if no picture is extant.

 

I have some leeway, as CA's Norfolk isn't quite like Real Norfolk!

[Shadow]

.....

 

I have some leeway, as CA's Norfolk isn't quite like Real Norfolk!

 

      IT ISN'T!!!!      

[Nearholmer]

This might indeed be an ideal opportunity to sneak an Akroyd Stuart engine loco, by Hornsby, into the picture. They certainly designed and quoted for standard gauge ones, although I'm far from sure that any were actually sold. The great virtue is that the engine will run on any old rubbish, including, I'm sure, Dodo Brand Norfolk Crude. If ever they get to make benzine from it, the slogan can be: Dodo, the more refined motor spirit.

 

K

 

PS: Was Wells next the Sea named in honour of the oil boom?

Edited July 5, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Shadow]

"Dodo Shale Oil Company"

 

Extinct before existence.

[Edwardian]

      IT ISN'T!!!!      

 

Sorry, that was a joke in very poor taste, and I retract it at once! 

 

Of course it's real!

 

 

This might indeed be an ideal opportunity to sneak an Akroyd Stuart engine loco, by Hornsby, into the picture. They certainly designed and quoted for standard gauge ones, although I'm far from sure that any were actually sold. The great virtue is that the engine will run on any old rubbish, including, I'm sure, Dodo Brand Norfolk Crude. If ever they get to make benzine from it, the slogan can be: Dodo, the more refined motor spirit.

 

K

 

Brilliant idea, though I think the chances of me producing a working model of this are vanishingly small!

[Compound2632]

I have the first three books in that series. They only show outline drawings.

 

IMG_20170705_191637.jpg

 

IMG_20170705_191702.jpg

 

 

Book 1 is a signed copy with some additional notes.

 

IMG_20170705_191722.jpg

 

IMG_20170705_191729.jpg

 

Mr Thomas was catering for a less discerning era. He makes no note of his sources, I presume? They could even be from his own observation and notes.

 

Edwardian, in the absence of any definitive information, no-one can say that a model of this wagon as a pre-1907 wagon as running c. 1905 is wrong - always a satisfactory position to be in. At worst (or best, depending on your philosophy) building a wrong model will flush out accurate information.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Compound2632

[Shadow]

Mr Thomas was catering for a less discerning era. He makes no note of his sources, I presume? They could even be from his own observation and notes.

 

Edwardian, in the absence of any definitive information, no-one can say that a model of this wagon as a pre-1907 wagon as running c. 1905 is wrong - always a satisfactory position to be in. At worst (or best, depending on your philosophy) building a wrong model will flush out accurate information.

It says in the header that 95% are from his own notes, while the others are from unimpeachable sources!

[Edwardian]

It says ... the others are from unimpeachable sources!

 

An unimpeachable source:

[Nearholmer]

Edwardian

 

The drawings are in museum of Lincolnshire life collection, and I've worked out from photos and the drawings how it all functioned. The engine itself is identical to one in our local museum, and the "gearbox" is effectively the gearing from a winch. It would be possible to build a real one! The proposal drawings for SG ones are in the same collection.

 

Ideally, you should build an SG version of the several times more complicated bogie loco that they built for the admiralty ........ especially since all evidence points to that having not actually worked in any practical sense! See below.

 

Kevin

Edited July 5, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Shadow]

This looks like a good off-topic topic to start!

 

Some details of Akroyd Stuart lock's. Drawings, etc.

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ClGqCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=akroyd+stuart+hornsby+locos&source=bl&ots=Z18yfppx-F&sig=xmnThyR1aqvJJXk8G1kgMgLQWUk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRzpn28_LUAhWpB8AKHTYmBlgQ6AEIbTAR#v=onepage&q=akroyd%20stuart%20hornsby%20locos&f=false