More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.

[Compound2632]

45 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Jus’ outa Newcastle this big bridge, and the engineer say to the tollman “I got cows, I got sheep, I got mules, I got all livestock. I got all livestock, I got aalll livestoooockkk….”

 

In 1913 the North Eastern Railway conveyed 2,772,784 head of cattle, of which 2,015,999 originated on the Company's system, earning £115,862. Unfortunately, I failed to note the division by species, as I had done for the other companies, but if similar them, about 60% sheep.

[jamie92208]

I have heard that pit props were a regular back load for coal wagons from the Humber ports but have no idea where I heard it.  I think it might be mentioned in one of my books about Collieries. 

 

Jamie

[corneliuslundie]

That would make sense as many pit props came from Scandinavia in normal times. And there were plenty of collieries serving the ports, all needing pit props.

I commented to my wife that the NER seemed to lump sheep in with cattle, and we discovered that the word cattle can cover both as well as various other animals. You learn something every day. But probably not a lot of antelopes or buffaloes travelling in NER trains.

Livestock traffic could be quite seasonal as well.

Jonathan

[Buhar]

3 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

But probably not a lot of antelopes or buffaloes travelling in NER trains.

Wildebeest were clearly the preserve of the Great Western

Alan

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I commented to my wife that the NER seemed to lump sheep in with cattle, and we discovered that the word cattle can cover both as well as various other animals. You learn something every day. But probably not a lot of antelopes or buffaloes travelling in NER trains.

 

43 minutes ago, Buhar said:

Wildebeest were clearly the preserve of the Great Western

 

The category in the Accounts and Returns is "Live Stock by Goods Train", subdivided into horses, cattle, calves, sheep, pigs, and miscellaneous. In 1913, 3,018 miscellaneous beasts travelled by the Great Western - rather a small number for a Wildebeest migration, from what I've seen, but rather more than went by the North Western or the Midland - 910 and 1,393 respectively. (These figures are for journeys originating on the company's system.)

 

At ExpoEM South a few years ago there was a rather nice little Cambrian layout that featured a Dragon Wagon - a standard Cambrian cattle wagon converted for the conveyance of these particular miscellaneous creatures, and painted red between the framing. Smoke would be emitted from time to time. As Dai Station says, "Animals must be kept in the proper container."

 

3 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

Livestock traffic could be quite seasonal as well.

 

This point was discussed in another topic recently. I'd noticed that for much of the later 19th century, the Midland's revenue from livestock traffic was significantly greater in the second half of the year than the first. @billbedford pointed to the late summer / early autumn movement of lambs from the hill farms where they had been born to lowland farms for fattening - a traffic that can still be seen today, though in four-decker lorries rather than by rail.

Edited February 8 by Compound2632
sp.

[MrWolf]

That's given me a mental image of a Cambrian Railways wagon fitted with a Tri-ang ducking giraffe mechanism.

 

A repaint of the giraffe required for authenticity of course.

 

Something that I have considered doing with a GWR bogie iron mink.

 

I'm not sure if I'll get more stick from the purists about the ducking giraffe or the fact that it's OO gauge...

[jamie92208]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

 

This point was discussed in another topic recently. I'd noticed that for much of the later 19th century, the Midland's revenue from livestock traffic was significantly greater in the second half of the year than the first. @billbedford pointed to the late summer / early autumn movement of lambs from the hill farms where they had been born to lowland farms for fattening - a traffic that can still be seen today, though in four-decker lorries rather than by rail.

Long Preston,a rather small statiopn north of Leeds would apparently load over 2000  sheep after the autumn sales,.  A former signalman told me how he would have to juggle 5 trains at the same time to get them loaded quickly, whilst keeping main line traffic moving. 

 

Jamie

Edited February 9 by jamie92208

[Compound2632]

@Miss Prism posted this photo elsewhere:

 

 

with the comment

 

Quote

Quite the best thing about the pic is that it will please the 'red Minks' school.

 

... which it certainly does. 

 

No. 35015 is from old series Lot 239, 200 wagons Nos. 35001-35200 completed August 1886, according to my notes. However, my notes also say that this lot had bulb iron frame whereas I'm pretty sure what we see here is a flitched timber solebar. There's no sign of the additional packing between the solebar and the bearing spring shoes, evident on this 3-plank wagon recently discussed:

 

 

 

... which I'm assured has a genuine bulb iron frame.

 

No. 35015 (Tare 5-9-0?) has number at the RH end and G.W.R. at the LH end, which would appear to indicate that it was last painted no later than c. 1893, which is interesting since the date is said to be 1907.

Edited February 9 by Compound2632

[magmouse]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Quite the best thing about the pic is that it will please the 'red Minks' school.

 

Consider me duly pleased.

 

The photo also supports my sense that the red wagon livery was an all-over red, including solebars and ironwork.

 

The issue with the left-hand GWR lettering is curious, if the given date is anything like correct. The lettering looks quite bright, and not the best part of 15 years old - the roof is also quite pale, suggesting relatively new paintwork.

 

The tare weight below the running number is given with just the numbers, without the text 'Tare'. Another oddity is the load capacity and tare weight are below the GWR and running number - with the later 'GWR on the right' style, they go above, but looking through a few pictures of the earlier style shows some variations in the placement of the 4 pieces of information: running number, tare, capacity and company initials.

 

I agree regarding the solebars being flitched.

 

Nick.

[Chrisbr]

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

No. 35015 is from old series Lot 239, 200 wagons Nos. 35001-35200 completed August 1886, according to my notes. However, my notes also say that this lot had bulb iron frame whereas I'm pretty sure what we see here is a flitched timber solebar. There's no sign of the additional packing between the solebar and the bearing spring shoes, evident on this 3-plank wagon recently discussed:

Wagon Stock has this to say about 35015 - As Compound stated, built to Lot 239, this wagon was completed on 10th Sept 1881 at Swindon and lasted until 23rd March 1912. It had a wooden body and wooden frame, with no mention of flitch plates in the stock book. No changes to axle boxes, brakes or other aspects of the build recorded in the stock book

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Chrisbr said:

built to Lot 239, this wagon was completed on 10th Sept 1881 at Swindon and lasted until 23rd March 1912.

 

Then my source of information - probably Atkins et al. - was well out!

[Compound2632]

I've been faffing about working out suitable numbers for the trio of Mousa early-Clayton Midland wagons that has been hanging around since the autumn, instead of getting on with my talk for tomorrow week. (Agh!) My usual dreadful tendency to displacement activity. I'm confident that I know the number series for Lot 29, the 8-ton high sided wagons to Drg. 402; I know the range of numbers in which the trade-built low sided wagons to Drg. 10 were built, there it's just a question of pinning down the number series for other types built around that time; and I'm inching towards a good guess at numbers for the later lots of D353 covered goods wagons, on the basis of what Kirtley-era covered wagons they renewed...

[Mikkel]

21 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

@Miss Prism posted this photo elsewhere:

 

 

 

Thanks to all for the information and discussion about this van. It would be nice to model it. I have a David Geen kit for the O/F 8 ton vans, but I'm not sure if that would work as a basis. For one thing, the solebars would need seeing to. And apologies if I have missed it (the photo is being discussed on two separate threads) but do I see correctly that part of the framing is missing? 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Mikkel said:

do I see correctly that part of the framing is missing? 

 

The eves framing is very shallow, if that's what you mean - level with the framing on the end. Compare that Siphon I started hacking about, removing the heavy framing from the K's moulded sides:

 

 

This paused pending rebuilding the underframe. Another in the "must get back to it! pile...

[Mikkel]

I meant this section. But I'm probably missing something.

 

 

[magmouse]

51 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

I meant this section. But I'm probably missing something.

 

I am reasonably sure this is a trick of the light - the particular angle of this framing member, relative to the direction of the sunlight, is such that it casts no shadow, unlike other parts of the frame.

 

Nick.

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, magmouse said:

I am reasonably sure this is a trick of the light - the particular angle of this framing member, relative to the direction of the sunlight, is such that it casts no shadow, unlike other parts of the frame.

 

Yes, look how the diagonal piece at the LH end is also nearly disappearing - but it's not quite at the right angle.

 

We can conclude that the sun is at the same angle, pretty much, as the diagonal on the door - and hence, if we knew the date, the time of day, or vice-versa!

[magmouse]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

and hence, if we knew the date, the time of day, or vice-versa!

 

Or if we knew both the time of day and the date, we could determine the orientation of the wagon, and so the track, and thus eliminate many possible locations!

 

Nick.

[Rail-Online]

On 18/11/2023 at 11:03, Compound2632 said:

 

It could be any number of places where the two companies intersected: Bristol, Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford, Evesham, Wolverhampton, Dudley... Of those, Bristol would be the one if the Krugers really were confined to the main line (i.e. London - Bristol - Exeter I suppose). Does anyone recognise the chimney? Or know more of the wanderings of the Krugers?  

Regarding the GWR Kruger and the MR Tariff Van.  The photo was taken at Evesham 19 Aug 1903 and the tariff van is lettered Return to Derby - which seems a bit strange to me as I always assumed their routes were quite localised. The PO in the image in Gas Works Warwick No6. 

 

Cheers Tony

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, Rail-Online said:

Regarding the GWR Kruger and the MR Tariff Van.  The photo was taken at Evesham 19 Aug 1903 and the tariff van is lettered Return to Derby - which seems a bit strange to me as I always assumed their routes were quite localised. The PO in the image in Gas Works Warwick No6. 

 

Interesting. I don't think I'd realised this is the photo used by Bob Essery in Midland Wagons, plate 204 - "Author's Collection" (so the HMRS have his copy now, somewhere). I see my original link has expired - must remember that happens when linking to photos in Facebook posts.

[Compound2632]

17 hours ago, Rail-Online said:

MR Tariff Van. 

 

These tariff vans, of which there were 250 built to Lot 433, were numbered 116095-116344. 

 

How do I know this? Numbers known unambiguously are:

• 116204, from the above photo.
• 116240, from a photo [Midland Wagons, plate 203]. This has the identical inscription, save that Bradford replaced Derby.
• 116156 and 116307, from a note on the Midland Railway Study Centre copy of the drawing, Drg. 1239: Tariff Vans 116156 & 116307 fitted with rings and staples for securing calves at Bradford Shops & lettered "To Work between Bradford & Oxenhope only".
• 116096, also from a note on the drawing: Carriage Door Lock and Tee Handle, with Lever inside and Luggage Door Bolt on Van 116096 (13/3/02).

My little list includes two other numbers in this range:

• 116183, received at Uttoxeter in July 1914, described as  "Melbourne Van" (see discussion of 114xxx numbers above) [MRSC 88-4.721.4235.02].
• 116267, known from a wagon label fro a consignment of meat from Lawley St to Longtown via Carlisle on 28 June 1914 [MRSC 14836]. But this is a bit doubtful, since it looks as if the 6 has been over-written 7 and 117267 was, I believe, a refrigerator meat van of Lot 486:

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image]

 

Now, these tariff vans were ordered as additions to stock, having been requested by the Traffic Committee in December 1897 and approved by the General Purposes Committee towards the end of the following month. Lot 433 was entered in the Lot List on 8 February 1898. 

 

The numbers of other wagons ordered as additions to stock around this time are known from the special wagons list and from their diagrams, supplemented by photos; the orders themselves are known from the Traffic, Carriage & Wagon, and General Purposes Committee minutes. The first few were all approved in early July 1897 and entered in the Lot List on the 7th of that month:

• 10 15-ton implement wagons, D313, Lot 417, Nos. 116055-116064;
• 10 40-ton armour plate trucks, D328, Lot 416, Nos. 116065-116074 (this lot was for 11 wagons with one, No. 11019, built as a renewal);
• 20 12-ton case trucks, D327, Lot 415, Nos. 116075-116094.

Then we have:

• 2 30-ton boiler trucks, D309, Lot 412 of 14 June 1897, Nos. 116345 and 116346 (the lot was for 4 wagons, the other two, Nos. 29570 and 29571, being renewals of 30-ton boiler trucks dating from 1875); and
• 2 25-ton hot armour plate trucks, D724, Lot 443 of 10 July 1898, Nos. 116347 and 116398.

The gap in this sequence is exactly 250 numbers. As a check, the sequence can be continued further:

• 110 refrigerator meat vans, D374, Lot 444 of 27 June 1898, ordered in two tranches of 50 in August 1898 and February 1899, with 10 built as renewals. Nos. 116359, 116443, and 116444 are in my list as refrigerator meat vans, the first two from accident reports and the other from a photo, so it seems reasonable to infer that the 100 additions to stock were Nos. 116349-116448;
• 500 covered goods wagons of Lot 462 of 27 April 1899, of which 450 were built as ordinary 8-ton vehicles, D362, and, by a Traffic Committee minute of February 1901, 50 built or altered to have passenger running gear, D360. Nos. 116511 and 116519 are on my list as covered goods wagons, one at Uttoxeter in 1914 and one wrecked at Sharnbrook in 1909; so we can start by postulating the number series 116449-116948;
• however, 150 of the 180 rail wagons, D334, of Lot 465 of 15 May 1899 were additions to stock and numbers on my list are 116898 (listed in Midland Wagons, source not yet traced), 116968 (from a wagon label for P/Way material, MRSC 31837), and 117063 (from Midland Wagons, plate 161);
• and  there are the four match trucks for the second batch of Cowans Sheldon 15-ton steam cranes, built to Lot 463 of 3 May 1899, Nos. 116951-116954.

So it would appear that wagons of these three lots were being built concurrently, with some mixing-up of numbers between the covered goods wagons and rail wagons. Anyway, these 654 wagons would take us up to No. 117102. 

 

From No. 117104 onwards, the special wagon list, diagrams, etc. give a continuous run of numbers up to 117182, then there is the single gas store holder truck of Lot 493, number unknown, and the match wagon for the final 15-ton steam crane, Lot 504, No. 117284, the 6 deep case wagons, D325, of Lot 508, Nos. 117286-117291, and the 6 wood skeleton wagons, D317, of Lot 532, Nos. 117292-117297. This implies the 100 refrigerator meat vans of lot 486 were numbered 117183-117283, with the gas store holder truck buried somewhere in that sequence. No. 117211 is my only known number in this range, a refrigerator meat van destroyed at Sharnbrook in 1909. 

 

in all this, there are two "missing" numbers, one in the series leading up to 117104, and one in the series leading up to 117286. It is probable that these were both crane match wagons which have escaped my eye, being requested by the Locomotive Committee or the Way and Works Committee and authorised without being noted by the Carriage & Wagon Committee. Lot 435 of 1 March 1898 was a match wagon for a 5-ton steam crane and Lot 460 of 11 March 1899 was also for a match wagon for an unspecified steam crane.

Edited February 11 by Compound2632
typo.

[Compound2632]

In yesterday's little essay on wagons ordered as additions to stock between mid-1897 and early 1902, covering Nos.116055-117297, I passed over one large batch of wagons. In September 1897, the Traffic Committee resolved that 1,000 high-side 8-ton goods wagons fitted with side, end, and bottom doors (i.e. D351) be built and referred the matter to the Carriage & Wagon Committee, who, in the usual way, passed it on to the General Purposes Committee, which had the authority to approve the estimated £61,000 of capital expenditure. Unusually, that committee took some time to give its approval, which was minuted by the Carriage & Wagon Committee on 3 December 1897.

 

At the very next meeting, on 16 December, Clayton reported that the whole 1,000 wagons had been built and sent into traffic.

 

Now, it's very clear that 1,000 wagons were not built in two weeks. The annual production of the Litchurch Lane and Bromsgrove works together was around 6,000 wagons per year at this period - around 120 per week. Looking at the Lot List, one finds Lot 405 of 5 April 1897, 2,500 wagons, and Lot 427 of 29 December 1897, 2,000 wagons, all to Drg. 790, D351. The latter lot comes too late and must have been all renewals. What I think is going on is that throughout the autumn, wagons being built to Lot 405 were being turned out with capital stock numbers - anticipating the General Purposes Committee's approval. (There is a caveat here: I have come to the conclusion that the Lot List reproduced in Midland Wagons Vol. 2 is the Litchurch Lane Lot List and does not include wagons built at Bromsgrove. If one adds up all the wagons in the Lot List from c. 1877 to c. 1902, one gets a total that is about 20,000 short of the total one gets by adding up the monthly returns of wagons built as renewals and additions recorded in the Carriage & Wagon Committee minutes over the same period. In August 1902, new broom David Bain, reporting on renewal policy to the Committee, reported that production of new wagons at Bromsgrove was to cease, having for a number of years past been at the rate of about 20 wagons per week. That corresponds to about 1,000 wagons per year, or 20,000 over a couple of decades. At the same time, the number of renewals per year was reduced from 6,000 to 5,000, so one is led to the conclusion that 5,000 per year was the wagon-building capacity of the Litchurch Lane works and indeed this was the post-Great War target that Robert Reid worked too and by the 1920s was achieving. So, some of these additional D351 wagons of the autumn of 1897 could have been built at Bromsgrove.)

 

Anyway, it seems reasonable to infer that these wagons took the 1,000 numbers prior to the ones discussed above, i.e. Nos. 115055-116054. Further, one can infer that none of the various specially-constructed wagons ordered as additions to stock in July 1897 entered service until about mid-December 1897, if one assumes numbers were assigned in strict order of completion - though i suspect that wasn't quite the case. The monthly reports in the minutes show 1,050 wagons built as additions to stock in September to December, which is actually 10 more than I can account for from the minutes...

 

The 30-ton bogie boiler trolleys of Lot 412, ordered in June 1897, took even longer to build, not entering service until after the tariff vans. Looking at the six-monthly increases in the number of covered goods wagons in the Returns of Working Stock, one can infer that no more than 43 of the tariff vans had entered service by the end of June 1898 though all had by the end of December; looking at the monthly reports in the minutes, it seems the lot was complete by the end of October. 

 

Anyway, looking at my little list again, in this range 115055-116054:

• 115286, a D351 in a 1922 photo, DY 12629, reproduced in Midland Record No. 30 p. 21;
• 115680, the number on Ken Werrett's drawing of a D351 wagon, based on sketches and measurements taken in 1916 - whatever one might think of the accuracy of Werrett's worked-up drawings, it seems to me one can have reasonable confidence in his recording of numbers;
• 115446 and 116031, delivering coal from St. Johns Colliery, Normanton, to J.J. Robinson of Skipton on 1 December 1897 and 10 February 1898 respectively; 
• 115199, delivering limestone fro, Haw Bank Quarry, Embsay, to Thos. Duckett of Skipton on 26 January 1898, these three from the Skipton Minerals Inwards Ledger;
• 115619, at Uttoxeter in July 1914, with coal from Stanton;
• 115869, from an express B wagon label Burton to Maryport dated 7 October 1914 [MRSC 14218]
• 115684, from a wagon label for grain from Helpston to Knottingley via Oakenshaw, dated 26 August 1918 [MRSC 14802];
• 115672, from a wagon label P.W. Spencer Thornton-in-Craven to Ballast Sidings Skipton, dated 22 April 1911 [MRSC 31811] - my first thought about this one was that it might be a low sided wagon, possibly one in Engineer's department use, but if it's stone direct from the quarry, it could easily be a high sided wagon;
• 115444, a D663A wagon in a couple of photos I've not seen [MRSC  88-G5/85-01, 02] but which from their catalogue descriptions sound like 1950s/60s photos ofdetails of a late survivor; this could perfectly feasiblybe a wagon built post-Great War as renewal of a wagon built in 1897.

Finally, No. 115053 was an ex-LTSR gunpowder van - in 1913 these were assigned odd numbers that I think may have been gaps left in the capital list, including 117298-117300 and 117501-117505. (I think the block 117301-117500 was occupied by the 200 banana vans of Lot 648, D387.)

 

While only two of these numbers are definitely D351, the others are at least consistent with being D351. Every block of numbers identified as assigned to a particular diagram narrows down the possible numbers given to D299 wagons!

[Compound2632]

On 11/02/2024 at 14:07, Compound2632 said:

Anyway, it seems reasonable to infer that these wagons took the 1,000 numbers prior to the ones discussed above, i.e. Nos. 115055-116054. Further, one can infer that none of the various specially-constructed wagons ordered as additions to stock in July 1897 entered service until about mid-December 1897, if one assumes numbers were assigned in strict order of completion - though i suspect that wasn't quite the case. The monthly reports in the minutes show 1,050 wagons built as additions to stock in September to December, which is actually 10 more than I can account for from the minutes...

 

We've forgotten the crackers, Gromit!

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC 64093]

 

I'd failed to take goods brake vans built as additions to stock into account. Being numbered in a separate series, they don't affect my attempt at pinning numbers on the general wagon stock but they do appear in the monthly reports of wagons built.

 

In July 1896, the Traffic Committee requested 50 additional goods brake vans, 15 to be 15 tons, D393, and 35 to be 10 tons, D390. The relevant lots were entered in the Lot List on 6 August 1896, Lot 380 for the 15 ton brakes and Lot 381 for the 10 ton brakes. the latter lot was for 50, i.e. 15 were built as renewals.

 

These were the only additions to stock ordered in 1896 so one can chart their progress in the various sources. The half-yearly Returns of Working Stock show the stock of goods brakes to be 1,377 at 30 June 1896, 1,416 at 31 December 1896, and 1,427 at 30 June 1897, which matches the monthly reports of wagons built as additions to stock of 39 in the second half of 1896 and 11 in the first half of 1897 - the last three were built in March 1897.

 

The Traffic Committee still wanted more goods brakes, requesting another 50 10 ton brakes in April 1897, as soon as the last of the previous batch was in traffic. The outcome was Lot 410 of 7 May 1897, for 60, ten being renewals. The 50 additions to stock were all built in the second half of 1897, since the half-yearly Return of Working Stock at 31 December 1897 shows 1,477 goods brakes.

 

For the same six months, the monthly reports show 1,050 wagons built as additions to stock, i.e. these 50 brakes and the 1,000 end-door 8-ton wagons requested by the Traffic Committee in September 1897, reported as complete by Clayton on 16 December. That none of these were built until September shows that there could be as much as five months between a lot being entered in the Lot List and any of the wagons ordered under that lot entering traffic. (Sept: 18; Oct: 264; Nov: 648; Dec: 120.)

 

Therefore none of the 42 special wagons ordered in June/July 1897 was complete until 1898. Exactly when is harder to untangle since in the half-yearly Returns of Working Stock, they are lumped in the category of "Goods Wagons" - i.e. all open wagons except coal and coke trucks. With the large scale renewal of bought-up PO wagons by standard 8-ton wagons, and the number of renewals and number of wagons broken up not being equal, it all becomes a bit of a mess, further complicated by 8-ton wagons with side and bottom doors, D299, being accounted for in the "Goods Wagon" column and 8-ton wagons with side, end, and bottom doors, D351, being accounted for in the "Coal and Coke Truck" column along with the ex-PO wagons they were replacing!

 

We're on a bit surer ground with covered goods wagons, the number of which in the half-yearly Reports and Accounts increases from 2,451 at 31 December 1897 to 2,751 a year later, comfortably corresponding to the 250 tariff vans of Lot 433 and the first 50 refrigerator meat vans of Lot 444, ordered by the Traffic Committee in July 1897. The Lot List gives 110 for this lot, but the second batch of 50 as additions to stock was not requested by the Traffic Committee until January 1899, leaving ten as renewals.

 

The monthly reports yield a total of 344 wagons built as additions to stock during 1898. Subtracting the 300 vans, the balance of 44 presumably encompasses the 42 special wagons ordered in June/July 1897 along with the two 25 ton hot armour plate trolleys of Lot 443, entered in the Lot List in June 1898 having been requested by the Traffic Committee the previous month.

 

It's all very gradually coming together!

[corneliuslundie]

Did the Midland "withdraw" wagons as worn out and then repurpose them as service stock? The GWR played that game a lot, especially in the 1920s. I am workijng on an article for the HMRS Journal on the subject, but like you analyses it takes a lot of sorting out.

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

Did the Midland "withdraw" wagons as worn out and then repurpose them as service stock? The GWR played that game a lot, especially in the 1920s. I am workijng on an article for the HMRS Journal on the subject, but like you analyses it takes a lot of sorting out.

 

Pretty much no, at least not worn-out stock. When in 1900 a thousand ordinary 8-ton wagons, D299, were lettered for loco coal, there's no sign of any criterion of condition or age being applied - it seems to have been simply the first thousand that came to hand. Photos show a mix of 8A (pre-1889) and 10A (post-1889) axleboxes and a range of numbers that indicates that at least some were no more than a few years old. After that further loco coal wagons were newly purpose-built.

 

Ballast wagons - wagons assigned to the Engineer's Department and lettered E D - seem similarly to have been drawn from the general pool of low sided wagons, D305, and photos show a mix of generations. There is some evidence that some were new-built for the purpose, including, possibly, 300 built as additions to stock c. 1891-2, that appear in the minutes but not in the Lot List - so, on my current thinking, may have been built at Bromsgrove. Some Kirtley-period lowside wagons lased in Engineer's Department use until at least the mid-1890s, though they need not by then have been very much more than 20 years old.

 

There are "dirt wagons" seen in the background of some official photos of new wagons, again in the mid-1890s. It's unclear what their purpose was; it's possible they were internal user within the Litchurch Lane works:

 

 

These are, again, Kirtley lowside wagons, and need not be much more than 20 years old. The last batch of 2,000 had been ordered from Gloucester, S.J. Claye, and Oldbury in December 1872 but delivery was not complete until May 1874.  

 

It has to be borne in mind that the average lifetime of a Midland wagon for accountancy purposes was about 20 years - hence the renewal rate of around 6,000 wagons per year or 5% of stock - whereas the Great Western seems to have got rather longer out of its wagons, helped by some upgrading along the way, e.g. oil axleboxes and perhaps increased journal sizes. 

 

in the 20th century, over 8,000 wagons were sold off second hand, the bulk between 1906 and 1916, mostly 8-ton highside wagons, i.e. D299 wagons built from 1882 onwards - so, at a bit over 20 years old.

 

If one looks at the rate at which the LMS was building wagons in the 1920s, it is clear that the Midland policy 5% of stock renewed per annum was continued, with complete renewal of the wagon stock within 20 years, i.e. by 1943. However, the LMS's rate of new construction tailed off after 1930, with the result that by nationalisation about 30% of LMS wagons were over 25 years old, i.e. of pre-grouping origin.

Edited February 13 by Compound2632