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

[Compound2632]

My error with the lowsided wagon, as I'm sure you will have spotted, has been to put Derby builders plates on it. Those have now been removed.

 

The Lot 29 highside wagon rightly carries these plates; this was the first large batch of wagons built as additions to stock at the new Litchurch Lane works, though a couple of batches of 500 each of lowside wagons built as renewals preceded it, Lots 6 and 23; it is unclear whether these were the first lowside wagons to Drg. 213, as that drawing was entered in the register on 30 November 1875 but Lot 6 was entered in the Lot List 18 months later, on 31 July 1877. The old works had built 922 wagons as renewals between 1 April 1876 and 30 June 1877, the majority of which will have been lowside wagons. The old works must have been over the worst of its capacity crisis by then; in March 1874 Clayton had reported that the works was overwhelmed with repair work to the extent that building of new stock had been reduced to just one cattle wagon. To keep up renewals at 4% of stock per annum, the works should have been churning out around 100 wagons per month. The unusual step had been taken of ordering renewals from outside builders: in addition to the 25 cattle wagons from Gloucester and 10 brake vans from Oldbury noted above, 500 lowside wagons were ordered in July 1875 as renewals, 300 from Metropolitan and 200 from North of England. These were certainly still to Drg. 10 as the Metropolitan RC&W Co. drawing [HMRS drawing 18126] is a straight copy of Drg. 10. 

 

Anyway, back to Lot 29. These wagons were the outcome of a discussion at Board level in early 1879 as to the relative cost of hiring coal wagons or building them in the company's own shops, coupled with a comparison of the earnings of Midland wagons compared with those of other companies. Clayton said he could build coal wagons for £50 5s 10d and goods wagons for £53 2s 10d. Confusingly, this led to approval for the construction of 1,000 wagons at £53 2s 10d each, i.e goods rather than coal wagons. The Traffic Committee then stuck its oar in, saying that these wagons should be made suitable for goods or coal traffic. This increased the estimated cost to £55 per wagon, as the sides were to be made 35" rather than 22" - the latter being roughly the height of the sides of a lowside wagon (21" plus ⅜" capping) while the latter corresponds, again with some rounding-up, to the 2' 10⅜" plus ⅜" capping of the later standard 8-ton wagons. Lot 29 was entered in the Lot List on 12 March 1879, the relevant drawing, Drg. 402, being prepared about the same time. (This drawing is not in the C&W drawing collection at the MRSC and its entry in the drawing register is in a short block entered without dates; we do know that it was prepared by G.F. Ride.)

 

As additions to stock, the order for these came between two batches of implement wagons, both 20-strong: the 15-ton 6-wheeled implement wagons, Lot 20 of September 1878, and the 8-ton 4-wheelers of Lot 43, of May 1880. The former included No. 30554 (Midland Wagons plate 24) whilst the latter included No. 31562 (Midland Wagons plate 308) and were almost certainly numbered 31562-31581, being renewed in 1897/8 by D333 wagons of Lot 422, and recorded in the 1913 list of numbers of special wagons. So it seems reasonable to assume that the wagons of Lot 29 were numbered 30562-31561, with the implement wagons of Lot 20 as Nos. 30542-30561. The Returns of Working Stock show no additions in the second six months of 1878 but 1,050 additions over the next two years, all but 22 by 30 June 1880 - which is an excess of 10 over those in these three lots, though these can be accounted for by six creosote wagons that were probably a Locomotive Department affair, and four crane match wagons.

 

Looking at my little list, I have 26 numbers in the range 30562-31561. These include two of the gunpowder vans of Lot 583 of 1904, four covered goods wagons of various diagrams all dating from 1903-1906, a motor car van of 1904, a bogie tramcar truck of 1905, and two circular plate wagons of either 1895 or 1899. This on the whole indicates renewal at the age of about 24-25 years, as would be expected at a renewal rate of 4% of stock per annum.

 

The remainder are listed as good, high goods, highside, or noted as wagons in coal traffic from the Skipton Minerals Inwards Register, in 1897/8. One, No. 31400, appears on the left in this photo, DY 6585, of a two-ton crane at Millers Dale, date unknown:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 88-2014-0014.]

 

A wooden brake block is just visible and the numberplate is left of centre, whereas on wagons to Drg. 550 (D299), with continuous drawger, it was right of centre.

 

The official photo of the type, DY 5774, shows No. 31449 (Midland Wagons plate 91):

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue image of MRSC 88-G5/19.]

 

I've plumped for No. 31455, recorded as a coal wagon in early 1892, in a number-takers book, probably from Guiseley:

 

 

It's not quite sitting level on its springs yet; like the lowside wagon, I've not fitted the printed floor as it will be a loaded wagon; the lead weight should help it to sit straight.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, magmouse said:

Any thoughts as to why that might be the case? The rot-accelerating properties of bovine ordure? Is this specific to the Midland, or did other railway companies also replace cattle wagons more often than other types?

 

Not expecting you to necessarily have all the answers to these questions, but your observation has piqued my curiosity.

 

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

It might be because of the move to standard large wagons rather than three sizes.  If I remember correctly there were different rates for the three sizes but getting the right mix of wagons to the customer was tricky so they built all new ones to large size with a move able partition and then charged appropriately the customer appropriately. 

 

1 hour ago, magmouse said:

That's an interesting thought - we need one of Stephen's graphs of build rate over time, to see if there is a spike in build/replacement for a relatively short time, with a more typical steady state rate either side.

 

I'm working on cattle wagons on-and-off and do have some answers and a graph or two up my sleeve. I'm planning on cattle wagons being the subject of an article in the Autumn 2024 issue of the Midland Railway Society Journal, following timber trucks in the Summer issue.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

Re Laycock, I've found Keith Turton article in the HMRS journal, vol 23 no 10 9ages 37and 380.  It appears that he was linked with H Robinson and had quite a few wagons, mainly built btpy Roberts. 

 

I'm meaning to write a letter to the HMRS Journal on that, or rather, on H. Robinson & Sons' wagons. Their Nos. 5-14 were Midland Reg. Nos. 23286 (27 Jan 1898) and 23459-67 (24 Feb -28 May 1898), built by Beadman, 10 ton wagons, 5-18 tare, 15' 6" or 15' 7" long inside by 7' 0" wide inside and 2' 11" sides with full-height doors. Nos 15-24, 10-ton wagons built by Chas. Roberts, are an oddity as they appear to have been registered twice, as 26672-81 c. early 1899 and 44221-30 c. August 1904, but these are both sections of the registers I have not looked at myself. 

 

No. 5 first puts in an appearance in the Skipton Minerals inwards Register on 7 Feb 1898, with 6 ton 18 cwt of coal from Pope & Pearson's West Riding colliery at Altofts and puts in six further appearances before the end of March, mostly from West Riding but twice from Prince of Wales, Pontefract. No. 7 appears on 29 March, with 7 ton 11 cwt of coal from Carlton Main, Cudworth. There are also single appearances by wagons Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, which I have not found in the Midland registers - they might be pre-1887 dumb buffer wagons.

 

Turton's HMRS Journal article is based on Chas. Roberts records, I think, without reference to the Midland registration books, hence he misses the Beadman wagons. What he says about Laycock's Nos. 25-39 is that they were ordered by Robinson - they follow on in numerical sequence from his doubly-registered batch. 

[Schooner]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

The official photo of the type, DY 5774, shows No. 31449 (Midland Wagons plate 91):

 

 

Is that white running gear? Like later PO white rims, for photo only? White lead, as in the mix for the body grey...?

 

Wagonisers all: Is there an approved method for 5-links? A pair of the undersized S&W links joined by three links of Slaters' 1209-ish...?

 

Would experiment and report back, but I'm away from the layout for a spell.

Edited February 26 by Schooner

[Compound2632]

20 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Is that white running gear? Like later PO white rims, for photo only? White lead, as in the mix for the body grey...?

 

@billbedford would, I think, say whitewash, for the photograph. I'm coming round to this idea.

 

Twenty-four links per inch means five links are just about 5.5 mm, which is too short. The five-link coupling should be the same length as the standard three-link coupling, about 10 mm, so one would want something nearer eight links per inch. But note in the photo of No. 31449, the end link is longer, to fit over the drawhook of the next wagon. Also, Drg. 10 and others show the top link is actually a shackle, secured by a bolt through the drawhook.

 

I have taken the liberty of assuming that by 1902, the five-link couplings originally provided for wagons of the 1870s had been replaced by three-links. I have an 1893 photo of a Drg. 10 wagon in Engineers Department use, fitted with three-link coupling, though a Kirtley-period lowside wagon in the same photo still has its five-link coupling.

Edited February 26 by Compound2632

[Schooner]

37 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

...the end link is longer, to fit over the drawhook of the next wagon...the top link is actually a shackle

Agreed. If the top and bottom links were c.3mm each - as per a 3-link being c.10mm - then the overall coupling length would be about right with 1209 middle links. Eyeballing the ratio of the middle links to the end link in the photo, though, this doesn't seem quite accurate.

 

I have used the little S&W links in anger, they do work and would allow for larger middle links...but they are trickier than using a nearer-scale link to go over a coupling hook. Hmmm.

 

Now, side chains...!

[Compound2632]

19 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Agreed. If the top and bottom links were c.3mm each - as per a 3-link being c.10mm - then the overall coupling length would be about right with 1209 middle links. Eyeballing the ratio of the middle links to the end link in the photo, though, this doesn't seem quite accurate.

 

 

Crop from scan of MR C&W Drg. 10 [MRSC 88-D0058].

[billbedford]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I haven't fitted the printed floor; my intention is to use a piece of sheet lead as the wagon will be modelled with a load (nature TBD). 

 

If you are going to do this, you might think about using a heavier wire for the springs. The wire supplied is 0.009" for the resin wagons and 0.011" for the etched ones. 

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

It might be because of the move to standard large wagons rather than three sizes.  If I remember correctly there were different rates for the three sizes but getting the right mix of wagons to the customer was tricky so they built all new ones to large size with a move able partition and then charged appropriately the customer appropriately. 

 

4 hours ago, magmouse said:

That's an interesting thought - we need one of Stephen's graphs of build rate over time, to see if there is a spike in build/replacement for a relatively short time, with a more typical steady state rate either side.

 

Go on then, a graph - which shows a steady rate of renewal over 50 years:

 

 

Actually, this supports a 20 year average lifetime, rather than the 17 I'd calculated previously. Small cattle wagons were not built after 1878 and medium not after 1893; the transition to all large was by gradual renewal. At December 1892, the stock was 750 large, 441 medium, and 294 small cattle wagons. One can see that by 1922 no cattle wagon built before 1897 was still in service; medium cattle wagons were extinct before the Great War.

Edited February 26 by Compound2632

[WFPettigrew]

16 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

If I may Interrupt the thread and digress slightly to PO wagons.  @WFPettigrew may be interested. In this.  In 1902 Charles Roberts constructed a batch of 10 ton wagons for R Laycock,a Coal merchant at Skipton.  10 of this batch were numbered and lettered in pairs to serve flows to individual coal Merchants in various places north and west of Skipton. As well as some that went to various places on the Northern part of the S and C,, four of them were for Merchants in Barrow in Furness.

 

27 &28 empty to Glasshoughton Collieries to load Main, for L Ashcroft, Barrow in Furness.
29 & 30 empty to Glasshoughton Collieries to load Main for R Townson, Barrow in Furness
31 empty to Carlton Main Colliery Cudworth to load hards for G Carrodus, Kirkby Stephen
32 empty to Carlton Main Colliery, Cudworth to load Hards for R Braithwaite, Ormside.    
33  empty to Carlton Main Colliery, Cudworth to load hards for Ewin and Dargrave, Appleby.
                                
These wagons were built by Charles Roberts in 1902 and were standard 5 plank 10 ton wagons.

 

From memory Keith Turton wrote an article about Laycock's in the HMRS journal fairly recently.  He didn't have a photo of any of their wagons.  There will of course be basic livery details in the Roberts order booms at the NRM. 

 

Jamie

 

 

Yep very interested, thank you Jamie!

 

Richard Townson I was aware of - thanks to a list of PO traders drawn up by the CRA Chairman @SteamAle - though that list has him as a merchant in Ulverston rather than Barrow.  (Small difference of only 9 miles and from a personal point of view, Ulverston is more useful than Barrow for my intended layout depicting a might-have-been FR branch through Cartmel.)  But Ashcroft is a new name. 

 

13 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I'm meaning to write a letter to the HMRS Journal on that, or rather, on H. Robinson & Sons' wagons. Their Nos. 5-14 were Midland Reg. Nos. 23286 (27 Jan 1898) and 23459-67 (24 Feb -28 May 1898), built by Beadman, 10 ton wagons, 5-18 tare, 15' 6" or 15' 7" long inside by 7' 0" wide inside and 2' 11" sides with full-height doors. Nos 15-24, 10-ton wagons built by Chas. Roberts, are an oddity as they appear to have been registered twice, as 26672-81 c. early 1899 and 44221-30 c. August 1904, but these are both sections of the registers I have not looked at myself. 

 

No. 5 first puts in an appearance in the Skipton Minerals inwards Register on 7 Feb 1898, with 6 ton 18 cwt of coal from Pope & Pearson's West Riding colliery at Altofts and puts in six further appearances before the end of March, mostly from West Riding but twice from Prince of Wales, Pontefract. No. 7 appears on 29 March, with 7 ton 11 cwt of coal from Carlton Main, Cudworth. There are also single appearances by wagons Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, which I have not found in the Midland registers - they might be pre-1887 dumb buffer wagons.

 

Turton's HMRS Journal article is based on Chas. Roberts records, I think, without reference to the Midland registration books, hence he misses the Beadman wagons. What he says about Laycock's Nos. 25-39 is that they were ordered by Robinson - they follow on in numerical sequence from his doubly-registered batch. 

 

 

Putting all this together, would I be right in thinking then that the Laycock 25-39 were ordered by Robinson but lettered for Laycock - and in the case of 27-33 were additionally marked for delivery to the varius small coal merchants - so in effect Laycock (or Robinson but in the guise of Laycock?!) was acting as a coal factor here?

 

I am feeling a trip to the NRM's Search Engine could be in order (I already could do with looking at the GCR PO registers there to try and track down some Old Silkstone wagons spotted at Lindal Ore Sidings) - but if you know the answer to this already... 

 

14 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

Re Laycock, I've found Keith Turton article in the HMRS journal, vol 23 no 10 9ages 37and 380.  It appears that he was linked with H Robinson and had quite a few wagons, mainly built btpy Roberts.  The livery was red oxide with white lettering and there is a sketch in the article. 

 

I will see if I can get hold of a copy of that article.   Laycock does not feature in the POWsides catalogue. 

 

Many thanks for all this. 

 

All the best

 

Neil 

[WFPettigrew]

19 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

If I may Interrupt the thread and digress slightly to PO wagons.  @WFPettigrew may be interested. In this.  In 1902 Charles Roberts constructed a batch of 10 ton wagons for R Laycock,a Coal merchant at Skipton.  10 of this batch were numbered and lettered in pairs to serve flows to individual coal Merchants in various places north and west of Skipton. As well as some that went to various places on the Northern part of the S and C,, four of them were for Merchants in Barrow in Furness.

 

27 &28 empty to Glasshoughton Collieries to load Main, for L Ashcroft, Barrow in Furness.
29 & 30 empty to Glasshoughton Collieries to load Main for R Townson, Barrow in Furness
31 empty to Carlton Main Colliery Cudworth to load hards for G Carrodus, Kirkby Stephen
32 empty to Carlton Main Colliery, Cudworth to load Hards for R Braithwaite, Ormside.    
33  empty to Carlton Main Colliery, Cudworth to load hards for Ewin and Dargrave, Appleby.
                                
These wagons were built by Charles Roberts in 1902 and were standard 5 plank 10 ton wagons.

 

From memory Keith Turton wrote an article about Laycock's in the HMRS journal fairly recently.  He didn't have a photo of any of their wagons.  There will of course be basic livery details in the Roberts order booms at the NRM. 

 

Jamie

 

 

Further to this, I have been sent the following by the Cumbrian Railways Association historian and author Dave Richardson, who pulled together the following from a hunt through trade directories looking for coal merchants covering the area served by the Furness mainline between Barrow and Carnforth.

 

He says L Ashcroft will be Mrs Lawrence Ashcroft whose coal merchants business is listed in trade directories covering Barrow in 1901 (Hindpool Rd), 1905, 1911, 1913 but not 1924.

 

R Townson will be Richard Townson of 250 Duke St Barrow. His coal merchants business is listed in the relevant trade directories for 1901 (Hindpool Rd), 1905, 1911, 1913 (Hindpool Rd) 1924 and 1931.  

 

He says there was nothing in the trade directories mentioning R Laycock or H Robinson and Sons - which does perhaps further fuel the suggestion they were operating as factors here, dealing business to business rather than selling to the general public. 

 

Best wishes

 

Neil 

 

 

[jamie92208]

4 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

 

Yep very interested, thank you Jamie!

 

Richard Townson I was aware of - thanks to a list of PO traders drawn up by the CRA Chairman @SteamAle - though that list has him as a merchant in Ulverston rather than Barrow.  (Small difference of only 9 miles and from a personal point of view, Ulverston is more useful than Barrow for my intended layout depicting a might-have-been FR branch through Cartmel.)  But Ashcroft is a new name. 

 

 

 

Putting all this together, would I be right in thinking then that the Laycock 25-39 were ordered by Robinson but lettered for Laycock - and in the case of 27-33 were additionally marked for delivery to the varius small coal merchants - so in effect Laycock (or Robinson but in the guise of Laycock?!) was acting as a coal factor here?

 

I am feeling a trip to the NRM's Search Engine could be in order (I already could do with looking at the GCR PO registers there to try and track down some Old Silkstone wagons spotted at Lindal Ore Sidings) - but if you know the answer to this already... 

 

 

I will see if I can get hold of a copy of that article.   Laycock does not feature in the POWsides catalogue. 

 

Many thanks for all this. 

 

All the best

 

Neil 

I have now found the HMRS article and have a copy of it.  In it is a drawing for a Laycock wagon apparently copied from the Charles Roberts Order book.  It says that the livery is white letters on red oxide body colour.  It also says that the wagons were seen regularly on the S and C but no source is quoted.  Laycock had an office in the coal yard at Green Ayre.  Bryan Gray, who is modelling Little Salkeld is also interested.  I wonder if between us we could commission some transfers from POWsides.  I am willing to have a go at some artwork as I've done several sets in the past.  If a suitable wagon is available in kit form in 4 and 7 scale it would be worthwhile.  I think, however that a trip to the NRM to get a good photo of the relavent entry in the Charles Roberts Order book would pay dividends. 

 

Jamie

Edited February 27 by jamie92208

[WFPettigrew]

22 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

I have now found the HMRS article and have a copy of it.  In it is a drawing for a Laycock wagon apparently copied from the Charles Roberts Order book.  It says that the livery is white letters on red oxide body colour.  It also says that the wagons were seen regularly on the S and C but no source is quoted. 

 

Thanks Jamie - would there be any chance of you scanning and PM'ing a copy please if you had a moment?  Not at all urgent... Edit: I now have a scan, thank you @mikeallerton

 

22 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

Bryan Gray, who is modelling Little Salkeld is also interested.  I wonder if between us we could commission some transfers from POWsides.  I am willing to have a go at some artwork as I've done several sets in the past. 

 

Yes I would be interested - though I guess it depends quite how the lettering was done for the various local dealers on the S&C and Furness.  If you did the artwork, presumably that would bring the total cost down as well?

 

22 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

If a suitable wagon is available in kit form in 4 and 7 scale it would be worthwhile.  I think, however that a trip to the NRM to get a good photo of the relavent entry in the Charles Roberts Order book would pay dividends. 

 

Definitely worth a trip to the NRM to look.   Since my post this morning I have been told the GCR PO registers do not contain dimensional details, unlike those of the Midland.  (Cue @Compound2632 restating a Derby is better than everyone else mantra..!)   So there is less to be gained from them than I hoped for the Old Silkstone wagons, but still trying to find them for dating purposes. 

 

As for a kit - it again depends on exactly what size the originals were.  There are Glos 5 planks from Slaters in 7mm and 4mm though the latter is not available from Slaters currently - I think POWsides may have stock - but this has the internal diagonal washer plates not external as was almost definitely used by Chas Roberts.   In 4mm Cambrian also do the 5 plank from Hurst Nelson which was 15' long.  I am not sure what other 7mm suppliers there might be. 

 

Best wishes

 

Neil 

 

 

Edited February 28 by WFPettigrew

[Compound2632]

Here's another graph:

 

 

In both these graphs, the date tick mark represents 1 Jan of the year indicated, i.e. the 1894 line reports the stock at 31 Dec 1893 - the data being at six-monthly intervals, 30 Jun and 31 Dec each year. I'm not sure this is the best way to label the time axis; on the one hand, in the spreadsheet 1894.0 is the start of 1894 and 1894.5 the mid-point, but in my text I'm always referring to stock totals at 30 Jun and 31 Dec, which means that to see the numbers for 31 Dec 1893, you have to look at the 1894 line, which may be confusing.

 

In the cattle wagon graph, I plotted the cumulative renewals from the earliest date for which there is data - the second six months of 1866 - but for covered goods wagons I have started my cumulative count of both additions and renewals from the opening of the Litchurch Lane C&W Works - ab officina condita if you will - as this serves my purpose better. In this period, the stock of covered goods wagons of all types increased steadily. (This includes ventilated / fruit vans, meat vans, refrigerator meat vans, gunpowder vans, goods vans for road vehicles, and in due course but off the edge of this graph, tariff vans. It does not include the 60 tariff brake vans built in this period, as they were accounted as and numbered as goods brake vans. I think departmental vehicles such as brakedown vans, signal department vans, and weighing machine adjusting vans are also included in the covered wagons total and have not captured all these but they were sufficiently few in number not to affect any broad conclusions.) The stock of covered goods wagons was increased both by absolute additions - i.e. new vehicles charged to capital expenditure, increasing the total stock of goods wagons and taking new numbers - and by renewal of ordinary goods wagons as covered vehicles, for which there might be a charge to capital for the additional expense compared to like-for-like renewal, and which took the numbers of the wagons they replaced. In the graph above, I have lumped both these categories together as "additions" as they both increase the total number of covered goods wagons. There were also covered goods wagons built as straight replacements for old worn-out covered goods wagons, paid for out of revenue, and labelled "renewals" on the graph.

 

Now, if we go right back ab societas condita, the very earliest data on covered goods wagon stock comes from the Reports and Accounts for 31 Dec 1851, 1852, and 1853, which report 74, 268, and 77 covered wagons added to stock in each year respectively - a total of 419. (This does not quite tie up with the number of wagons ordered from outside builders according to the Locomotive Committee minutes, which record 150 covered goods wagons ordered from Brown Marshall & Co. in June 1852 and 250 high sided wagons from Brown Marshall and from Crosland in November of the same year, these being ordered apparently in lieu of covered goods wagons though one might interpret the minutes as meaning that they were in fact covered.) In any case, based on total stock quantities, these 419 covered goods wagons would have been numbered in the range 7047-8505.

 

Curiously, when goods stock started to be reported by type in the Reports and Accounts, in 1868, the number of covered goods wagons at the end of that year was 419, though it had been 434 the previous June. The stock of covered wagons had crept up to 556 by the end of 1872, chiefly, I think, by renewal of open wagons as vans, though Brown Marshall & Co. did supply 20 tariff vans which I am unsure whether counted as covered wagons or brake vans. Between early 1866 and June 1874, 490 covered wagons had been built as renewals. There is no information on renewals before that date but if one assumes a rate of around 40-50 per year as in the late 1860s, it would seem reasonable to deduce that all of the 419 vehicles of the early 1850s had been replaced.

 

By late 1872, the Midland was starting the process that led to its take-over of the Swansea Vale Railway. On 3 December, the Traffic Committee considered a report on tinplate traffic and, noting that other companies provided covered wagons, the senders refusing to load into opens, recommended that an additional 300 covered wagons be supplied. These were ordered from the Railway Carriage Co., Oldbury, in February 1873. Oldbury had also had an order for 1,000 lowside wagons the previous December and in common with Gloucester and S.J. Claye got very much behind. The order for covered wagons was not complete until June 1874, six months late. Going by the Returns of Working Stock, these would have been numbered in the range 24718-27471 - this being a period when the total stock was increasing rapidly - but in my little list, I have seven numbers for covered goods wagons in the range 26455 to 26709 plus one might be, an "express" wagon label Kibworth to Brimsdown, in October 1903. None of these are the original Oldbury wagons but rather their successors.

 

These covered goods wagons for South Wales, along with, presumably, some covered goods wagons from the Swansea Vale Railway's stock (cf Midland Wagons plate 38), and some others, possibly including another 30 tariff vans built by Gloucester to an order of May 1874, brought the total stock of covered goods wagons up to 918 by the end of 1874, though it fell back to 903 by June 1878, at which level it remained until the end of 1882. 

 

I think it is at present impossible to say with any confidence what these covered goods wagons of the late 1860s and early 1870s looked like, though I will hazard a guess that they had cupboard doors. Various wagons appear in photos such as that of Wellingborough, now dated to 1875 (Midland Wagons plate 37), but there is no positive evidence that they are Midland vehicles. In the case of the one in the Wellingborough photo, the lack of solebar numberplate and the long lever Scotch brake speak against it being Midland.

 

Drg. 401 for Clayton's new type of covered wagon with sliding door was entered in the C&W Drawing Register alongside that for Drg. 402 for the Lot 29 highside wagons, undated but probably March 1879. However, the first entry in the Lot List is lot 48, dated 28 July 1880. This 16 month delay seems very odd and certainly untypical of the Derby C&W Drawing Office practice of the time, where drawings are usually dated within a week or so of the entry of the first Lot of the type. This makes me wonder whether any wagons of this type were built at Bromsgrove in 1879/80 and maybe after - I have previously explained my reasons for supposing that the Lot List reproduced in Midland Wagons is a Litchurch Lane document that does not, with one exception, include wagons built at Bromsgrove. But unless a Bromsgrove Wagon Works Lot List turns up, we shall never know.

 

Lot 48 receives no mention in the Traffic or Carriage & Wagon Committee minutes, so wagons built to this lot are presumed to be renewals - and indeed there was no change in the total stock of covered goods wagons. From the minutes, Returns of Working Stock, and Lot list one can say the following about wagons built to Drg. 401:

• Lot 48, 28 July 1880: 50 wagons built as renewals of old covered goods wagons, taking their numbers. The beautifully hand-coloured copy of Drg. 401 in the Study Centre collection [MRSC 88-D0618] shows these to have been built with 8A axleboxes, wooden brake blocks, and long brake lever.
• Lot 116, 27 May 1884, 210 wagons of which 200 were authorised as renewals of open goods wagons, the remaining 10 being renewals of old covered wagons. The official photo of the type (Midland Wagons plate 176) shows No. 19243, which would probably have been a lowside wagon from the batch of 1,000 ordered from Oldbury, Gloucester, and Brown Marshall in October 1870. The drawing is annotated in red ink to state that this lot had brakework to Drg. 522, i.e. the standard iron blocks with short lever, as seen in the photo. Of the wagons built as renewals of opens, 96 had been built by the end of 1884 with the remainder complete by the end of June 1885. in February 1885, Clayton made a report to the Carriage & Wagon Committee with a table of carrying capacity of wagons: of the 1,019 covered goods wagons at 31 December 1884, 198 were of 8 ton capacity, the balance of 821 being 6 ton vehicles. The 8 ton vehicles would include the 32 refrigerator meat vans of Lot 32; with the 50 wagons of Lot 48 and the 96 of Lot 116 built to date, 178 of the 198 8 ton vehicles are accounted for. The 20 passenger style but goods stock meat vans of Lot 81 seem to have been rated at 4 tons; as additions to stock they certainly contributed to the total of 1,019 covered wagons, being built in the first half of 1883, but Clayton's report doesn't include a 4 ton category, so there is some ambiguity.
• Lot 136, 12 October 1885, 20 wagons built as renewals.
• Lot 157, 17 August 1886, 100 wagons built as renewals.
• Lot 182, 26 July 1887, 200 wagons, 30 of which were built with vents, crudely added in pencil further defacing the beautiful drawing. Of these, 100 were ordered as additions to stock, 20 built in the second half of 1887, 71 in the first half of 1888 and the last 9 not until the second half of 1889, it would appear. As this was a sparse period for additions to stock (trade depression of the mid-late 1880s?) numbers can be inferred by interpolation to possibly have been 35471-35570, although this isn't well-supported by the three numbers i have in this range in my little list. There is no mention in the minutes of the 30 built with vents, so these and the remaining 70 would seem to be renewals of old covered wagons. Ventilated van No. 30069 of this lot was the subject of an official photo (Midland Wagons plate 175); if i renewal it would have replaced a wagon added to stock about 1875; this doesn't fit well with the lull in covered goods wagon building after the Oldbury wagons - perhaps it was the number assigned to a Swansea Vale covered wagon? In January 1903, David Bain reported to the Carriage & Wagon Committee on an inventory of wagon stock, which had revealed that three wagons had not been seen in the works in the three years ending 31 December 1901. These included covered goods wagon No. 26499, built August 1887, last seen in May 1895. This would be another of the renewals of this Lot and the number is in the range postulated for the Oldbury wagons, so this does support the idea that renewals in this Lot were replacing wagons built just 13-14 years earlier.
• Lot 209, 8 June 1888, was for 350 wagons. In December 1888, the Traffic Committee requested 2,000 goods wagons as additions to stock. The General Purposes committee didn't immediately approve this and in the meanwhile, the Traffic Committee requested that 200 of these 2,000 be built as covered wagons. This was all approved in February 1889. In June, The Traffic Committee requested that 30 of the 200 be built with vents for fruit traffic, which was duly approved. Thus 150 wagons of this lot were renewals of old covered wagons. The 200 built as additions were completed by the end of 1889. As the Ellis 10A axlebox was introduced round about March 1889, it seems probable that all these wagons built as additions had them, whereas the renewals, which probably started being built in the second half of 1888, had the 8A boxes. It is difficult to estimate numbers for the additional wagons, owing to the 1,800 additional open wagons being built at the same time, but they were probably numbered before the 20 12-ton case trucks of Lot 237, ordered in December 1889, Nos. 39546-39475.
• Lot 236, 12 December 1889, 100, built as renewals of old covered wagons.
• Lot 248, 17 June 1890, 150, ditto.
• Lot 287, 5 October 1891, 100, ditto. 
• Lot 309, 1 December 1892, 220 wagons. This is where even more red ink gets spilt on that beautiful artwork, Drg. 401 - literally, in the case of a large plot on one headstock in the plan view. The first 50 were made 6" taller than previous wagons and the remaining 170, 12" taller - the new dimensions being marked on, with no other change to the drawing. It was probably the first 20 that were built as renewals - the official photo of the 6" taller version is of No. 9012 (Midland Wagons plate 178). The remainder were built as additions to stock, as part of 250 covered goods wagons ordered in January 1893, which included the 50 pioneer 16' 6" covered goods wagons of Lot 311 - Drg. 401 has scrawled on it "Superseded by Drg. 1032 14/9/94", though the first 16' 6" wagons were to Drg. 981! The numbering of these additional wagons, probably 114351-114400, was discussed in a previous post; they had all been built by the end of 1893. (Up to about 1890, additions to stock took the next available numbers in a continuous series that ignored the private owner wagons that were being purchased in vast quantities from 1882 onwards. these seem to have been numbered from about 42000 upwards, reaching a maximum a bit short of 109000. Additions to stock from c. 1890 were numbered in a new series starting at around 111000. As many of these additions were 8-ton highside wagons (D299/D351), identical to the wagons being built as renewals of the bought-up private owner wagons, it's impossible to know quite where the boundary lay.)
• Lot 329, 8 December 1893, 26 16' 6" covered goods wagons. These and the 10 of Lot 364 were the last built as renewals of old covered goods wagons until about 1905, the thousands built in the first few years of the 20th century being built as renewals of open goods wagons.

I have so far traced 875 covered goods wagons of all sorts built as renewals of old covered wagons ab officina condita up to 1895; barring uncertainty over the status of tariff vans as covered wagons or goods brakes, these pretty well replaced all the Kirtley-era covered wagons. I therefore felt happy giving my Drg. 401 D353 wagon the number 7480, a number postulated to have originally been borne by a covered wagon of 1852, renewed c. 1868-1874, and renewed again as part of Lots 236, 248, or 287 in the early 1890s. No. 7480 is in my little list as recorded received at Uttoxeter in July 1914 on the regular run from Somers Town; that vehicle may well have been the next renewal of this one, a D362 or D363 van built c. 1913 or even one of the steel-framed 17' 6" vans of the same year, that were the harbingers of vans to come.

 

 

That's been a lot of work to number three wagons!

Edited February 27 by Compound2632

[corneliuslundie]

Re the apparent two years of registration five years apart, is it possible that the wagons were on  hire rather than owned and replaced after five years by similar but new wagons? Very many "privately owned" wagons were either on simple hire or redemption hire (ie they became the property of the hirer after a set number of years).

Jonathan

[Compound2632]

23 hours ago, billbedford said:

If you are going to do this, you might think about using a heavier wire for the springs. The wire supplied is 0.009" for the resin wagons and 0.011" for the etched ones. 

 

You have chosen spring wire according to the mass of the wagon built as intended - presumably arrived at by experiment?

[mikeallerton]

19 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

 

Thanks Jamie - would there be any chance of you scanning and PM'ing a copy please if you had a moment?  Not at all urgent... 

 

 

Yes I would be interested - though I guess it depends quite how the lettering was done for the various local dealers on the S&C and Furness.  If you did the artwork, presumably that would bring the total cost down as well?

 

 

Definitely worth a trip to the NRM to look.   Since my post this morning I have been told the GCR PO registers do not contain dimensional details, unlike those of the Midland.  (Cue @Compound2632 restating a Derby is better than everyone else mantra..!)   So there is less to be gained from them than I hoped for the Old Silkstone wagons, but still trying to find them for dating purposes. 

 

As for a kit - it again depends on exactly what size the originals were.  There are Glos 5 planks from Slaters in 7mm and 4mm though the latter is not available from Slaters currently - I think POWsides may have stock - but this has the internal diagonal washer plates not external as was almost definitely used by Chas Roberts.   In 4mm Cambrian also do the 5 plank from Hurst Nelson which was 15' long.  I am not sure what other 7mm suppliers there might be. 

 

Best wishes

 

Neil 

 

 

Morning Neil and Jamie, I'm modelling Lazonby so would be extremely interested in a couple of sets of Laycock's POWsides transfers, most particularly nos 35 and 36. Re-reading the article, I don't believe that the livery was amended to suit the destination, these were just the initial instructions. In terms of kits, I am trying to persuade Andy Vincent to produce the 1887 Charles Roberts 5 plank wagon, but apart from the RCH drawings in the Ince Waggons book, no reliable evidence has yet come to light.

 

Regards

Mike Allerton

Edited February 28 by mikeallerton

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, mikeallerton said:

In terms of kits, I am trying to persuade Andy Vincent to produce the 1887 Charles Roberts 5 plank wagon, but apart from the RCH drawings in the Ince Waggons book, no reliable evidence has yet come to light.

 

Next time I am at TNA, I will look up these wagons in the Midland PO registers and take note of the (internal) dimensions. I am also open to other requests. Having Simon Turner's transcript, it is an easy matter to locate the entries and take the full details.

 

I've not scheduled a visit for the near future as the primary school at which I am a governor is overdue for its Ofsted inspection - the inspectors' session with key governors (I'm vice-chair) would be on a Wednesday or Thursday afternoon and those are my preferred days for TNA.

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, mikeallerton said:

Morning Neil and Jamie, I'm modelling Lazonby so would be extremely interested in a couple of sets of Laycock's POWsides transfers, most particularly nos 35 and 36. Re-reading the article, I don't believe that the livery was amended to suit the destination, these were just the initial instructions. In terms of kits, I am trying to persuade Andy Vincent to produce the 1887 Charles Roberts 5 plank wagon, but apart from the RCH drawings in the Ince Waggons book, no reliable evidence has yet come to light.

 

Regards

Mike Allerton

The numbers aren't a problem. The routing nstructions would be in smalscripusually at thetlright on the bottom plank. It's no problem produce all the numbers and all the routing instructions on the same sheet as the main side. We just need the full information from the order book.  The Midland register gives us the internal dimensions so the external ones can be reliably guessed at. Now casomeone tel this ignoramus what washer plates are please. 

 

Jamie

Edited February 28 by jamie92208

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

Now can someone tel this ignoramus what washer plates are please. 

 

Erudite wagon-speak for what the vulgar (sorry) call strapping. But I have to say that in Midland specifications and drawings such ironwork is described as 'straps'. 

 

Hence a young wagon-works apprentice who had built up his body strength by lugging such ironwork around would be described as a 'strapping lad'...

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, mikeallerton said:

Re-reading the article, I don't believe that the livery was amended to suit the destination, these were just the initial instructions.

 

Having done likewise, I'm inclined to agree with you on this point. I gather it was not unusual for initial loading instructions to be given for new wagons. Delivery direct to Laycock at Skipton would involve the expense of empty wagon haulage from Horbury Junction and then from Skipton to the collieries Laycock was buying from; far more profitable to deliver to nearby collieries so they could go loaded to the customer or, in this case, the customer's customers.

[jamie92208]

25 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Having done likewise, I'm inclined to agree with you on this point. I gather it was not unusual for initial loading instructions to be given for new wagons. Delivery direct to Laycock at Skipton would involve the expense of empty wagon haulage from Horbury Junction and then from Skipton to the collieries Laycock was buying from; far more profitable to deliver to nearby collieries so they could go loaded to the customer or, in this case, the customer's customers.

I've seen those routing instructions on several wagons, usually in small script.  Yes the initial journey was usually to a colliery to be loaded   however once the order book is seen it should become clear.  I suspect that in this case the permanent routing instructions will be in the livery section of the page and delivery instructions on another part.  I've got two photos that show pages from the books and will post them later. 

 

Jamie

[mikeallerton]

22 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

I have now found the HMRS article and have a copy of it.  In it is a drawing for a Laycock wagon apparently copied from the Charles Roberts Order book.  It says that the livery is white letters on red oxide body colour.  It also says that the wagons were seen regularly on the S and C but no source is quoted.  Laycock had an office in the coal yard at Green Ayre.  Bryan Gray, who is modelling Little Salkeld is also interested.  I wonder if between us we could commission some transfers from POWsides.  I am willing to have a go at some artwork as I've done several sets in the past.  If a suitable wagon is available in kit form in 4 and 7 scale it would be worthwhile.  I think, however that a trip to the NRM to get a good photo of the relavent entry in the Charles Roberts Order book would pay dividends. 

 

Jamie

 

There is a reference in the Laycock article which contains a typo. It refers to an earlier article by Keith Turton and is about Charles Roberts. It should actually refer to Volume 23 Part 8 page 287 (for a mention of Laycock) The article starts on page 285.

 

Kelly's directory  (1906, 1910 and 1914) lists Robert Laycock as being the coal merchant for Lazonby, agent for Pope & Pearson, Carlton Main and Glasshoughton Collieries.

Edited February 28 by mikeallerton

[WFPettigrew]

22 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

I have now found the HMRS article and have a copy of it.  In it is a drawing for a Laycock wagon apparently copied from the Charles Roberts Order book.  It says that the livery is white letters on red oxide body colour.  It also says that the wagons were seen regularly on the S and C but no source is quoted.  Laycock had an office in the coal yard at Green Ayre.  Bryan Gray, who is modelling Little Salkeld is also interested.  I wonder if between us we could commission some transfers from POWsides.  I am willing to have a go at some artwork as I've done several sets in the past.  If a suitable wagon is available in kit form in 4 and 7 scale it would be worthwhile.  I think, however that a trip to the NRM to get a good photo of the relavent entry in the Charles Roberts Order book would pay dividends. 

 

Jamie

 

Further to all this, for the sake of completeness, the HMRS article also includes 3 wagons to the gloriously named Millom coal merchant Tas. Stromix, on the Furness as well.   

 

One observation I would somewhat dispute in the article - it states the customers must have been industrialists wanting top quality steam raising coal, but actually there is good evidence, photographic and otherwise, that the householders of the Furness area wanted Yorkshire coal to burn on their home fires: for example the lovely single wagon of the Lower Holker Cooperative Society, a Hurst Nelson 5 plank product with rounded ends, was lettered "Empty to Glasshoughton".   (This is another one that I hope to get some POWsides transfers made up for.)

 

Having now seen the diagonal lettering layout in the article, I am even more keen to get one or more of these.

 

Right, I will get over to the NRM as soon as I can - maybe in a couple of weeks' time - and will get the Chas Roberts order book details of both dimensions and livery photographed and noted. 

 

All the best

 

Neil 

[WFPettigrew]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

the primary school at which I am a governor is overdue for its Ofsted inspection

 

Hopefully OFSTED will be treading slightly more carefully in the Reading area these days 😔