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

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, jamesC37LG said:

Good point! My apologies for the intrusion here. I have now posted the question in it's own thread. 

 

By no means unwelcome here. I hope you get satisfaction by one route or another. Can the GER Society assist?

[Jammy2305]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

By no means unwelcome here. I hope you get satisfaction by one route or another. Can the GER Society assist?

 

I have asked on the GERS members forum but so far it has not produced anything.

 

- James

[Regularity]

I imagine that the chances of someone on here knowing is a lot less than the chances of someone on their forum, but you never know.

[kitpw]

Bricks again! https://www.cementkilns.co.uk/cement_kiln_sundon.html. An interesting photo (about 1905) at Sundon cement works showing a MR 5 plank wagon with a part load of bricks - unloading?  Probably, as it's a cement works, not a brickworks.  The wagon next to it is filled with something that looks like a large aggregate material; there are some MR vans in the background.  The elevation of the camera relative to the rail level reveals a few interior details.

 

Kit PW

[Andy Hayter]

Those bricks seemed to be stacked in an unusual fashion - on side rather than flat.  Further I can see no frogs - which does not prove much since that may just be the way they are stacked.

 

On that somewhat flimsy basis I think these may be refractory bricks which are used in the kilns.  

[kitpw]

17 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

these may be refractory bricks which are used in the kilns

...agreed: also, I think refractory bricks were flat both sides - no frog.

 

Kit PW

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Andy Hayter said:

Those bricks seemed to be stacked in an unusual fashion - on side rather than flat.  Further I can see no frogs - which does not prove much since that may just be the way they are stacked.

 

I think there's at least one brick showing its frog - towards the left on the top row; also towards the right. 

 

2 hours ago, kitpw said:

The wagon next to it is filled with something that looks like a large aggregate material;

 

Could well be coal. The fourth wagon along in that row is and end-door PO; also the Staveley wagon in the background. 

 

2 hours ago, kitpw said:

 there are some MR vans in the background. 

 

For bagged cement? Could really do with a high-res scan! Is the number of the 16'6" van 114329? That fits with a postulated block of numbers 114321-114370 for the pioneer fifty D362 vans of lot 311.

 

The 14'11" van on the left - D357 - 51738? - looks to me as if it has the early style of brake arrangement with a vertical strut on the inside end of the brake shaft (and hence the earlier style of underframe with a central transverse transom and without continuous drawbar); this would mark it down as one from lot 309. (Note also the numberplate to the left of the V-hanger which is a tell-tale for this earlier type of underframe.) These were built to Drg. 401 which dated from 1879 - in the usual casual attitude of the Derby C&W Drawing Office towards version control, this will have been re-drawn or a tracing amended to show the increased height of the vans of lot 309. This casual attitude is evident in one of the versions of Drg. 401 in the Midland railway Study Centre collection, marked up for the six covered fruit vans to D376 forming part of lot 309 [88-D1802]. The body is drawn with the original 5' 0" high doorway but the dimension is clearly marked 6' 0", in agreement with the diagram.

 

Mass production of D357 was just two lots in 1903/5 (nearly 3,000 vehicles) to Drg. 1830; this used the version of the 14' 11" underframe having continuous drawbar, introduced with Drg. 550 for the standard 5-plank open, D299. (Hence the lot list comment "to use existing material" - which does suggest that the mass-construction of D299 wagons came to an abrupt end.) The copy of this drawing in the Study Centre collection [88-D1818] shows 10A grease axleboxes; I have a sneaking suspicion that the 1905 lot may have been built with oil axleboxes. 

 

A similar story applies to the 16'6" vans. The first version, lots 311, 329, and the first 200 of lot 342, were built to Drg. 981; this shows the central transverse transom [88-D0134]. From the last 100 of lot 342, construction was to Drg. 1032, which shows continuous drawgear [88-D0224].

 

So I would say that from the point of view of Midland wagons, this photo could perfectly well date from 1894 (although I might change my mind if I saw a high-res version). Indeed, since by 1905 the early construction was very much in the minority of the van fleet, I would say I'm suspicious of the later date! Any experts on dating Stavely wagons?

Edited February 22, 2022 by Compound2632
Links inserted.

[Andy Hayter]

Yes you might well be right about the frogs.  Not that that automatically excluded them being refractory bricks, although an absence would have been strong evidence for.

[kitpw]

59 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

this photo could perfectly well date from 1894

The article about Sundon suggests that the Schneider kilns were erected in 1901 (date given - scroll down a bit further from the photo referenced above) so maybe an earlier date than "about 1905" but not before 1901.

 

Kit PW

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, kitpw said:

The article about Sundon suggests that the Schneider kilns were erected in 1901 (date given - scroll down a bit further from the photo referenced above) so maybe an earlier date than "about 1905" but not before 1901.

 

Let us suppose that the photo was taken to record the new kilns - so, 1901. That puts it before the mass-production of D362 (more or less, lot 503 for 1,734 wagons is dated January 1901 - how long after the lot date wagons started to emerge and how long it took to complete a lot is an interesting question) and D357 (lot 562 of 1903).

 

I have contacted the owner of the site asking if he has a print or higher-resolution scan or can point me to the source of the image.

[magmouse]

3 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

Those bricks seemed to be stacked in an unusual fashion - on side rather than flat.

 

From the photos I have seen of loads of bricks in wagons, stacking them on their sides is usual. I think this is because it is easier to handle them this way. See for example towards the end of this video:

 

https://www.ampthill.tv/playvideo.html?id=94&fbclid=IwAR3eZd3oo2SmzR3lPCLlZFnI0z2UhhIrzBpa1gesRaXH8i5pKFLCL8hqur0

 

Thanks to @turbos for linking to this earlier in this thread: 

 

 

Nick.

 

 

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, magmouse said:

From the photos I have seen of loads of bricks in wagons, stacking them on their sides is usual. I think this is because it is easier to handle them this way. See for example towards the end of this video:

 

Yes, looking at that again I agree with you. Also, remembering @Regularity's sketch of how the "pyramid" load in the one-plank wagon was built up, looking again I see the same technique being used in those high-capacity LNWR wagons that are loaded above the rave.

 

One sees, not only in this film, wagons where the top layer of bricks is not complete. I suppose this is because each wagon was loaded with son many barrow-loads of bricks, no half-barrow loads.

[kitpw]

42 minutes ago, magmouse said:

stacking them on their sides is usual. I think this is because it is easier to handle them this way

...and they don't break so readily when stacked on their sides rather than on their backs.  It's not always understood that mortar in brickwork keeps the bricks apart rather than "gluing" them together, particularly with lime based mortars which allow some movement without a failure of the joint: a soft cushion if you like.

 

Kit PW

[magmouse]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

One sees, not only in this film, wagons where the top layer of bricks is not complete. I suppose this is because each wagon was loaded with son many barrow-loads of bricks, no half-barrow loads.

 

Or perhaps a total number of bricks, either a round number or to load the wagon to its weight capacity?

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, magmouse said:

Or perhaps a total number of bricks, either a round number or to load the wagon to its weight capacity?

 

Well, yes - a number of full barrow loads would come to the same thing. You can see in the film how they're stacked on the barrow.

[magmouse]

It’s hard to count the bricks on the barrows, but I think one barrow load is 72 (two stacks of six high and six deep). Then two barrows is a gross - were bricks sold by the gross? It also depends on whether the bricks were counted out in advance, in a stack, or as they were barrowed onto the train - were the people loading responsible for ensuring the right total quantity was loaded, or was that already done?

 

Another intriguing question about how the world used to work…

 

Nick.

[Penlan]

Bricks... Some 50 years ago I recall chatting to an old bloke (probably what my age is now ) and he said they had to lay a minimum of 800 bricks a day, and this was after he'd cycled 26 miles to the job (and 26 miles back home afterwards).

[Asterix2012]

Were bricks sold by quantity or weight?

 

I would imagine weight of a particular type would be fairly consistent and it is easier to weigh 144 or 1000 bricks than count them.

[Regularity]

Maybe it was by volume: easier to calculate on the spot.

[Argos]

11 hours ago, Asterix2012 said:

Were bricks sold by quantity or weight?

 

I would imagine weight of a particular type would be fairly consistent and it is easier to weigh 144 or 1000 bricks than count them.

 At least from the late-80s when I started work as a quantity surveyor bricks were sold by the 1,000.

 

Given that old customs and practices take a considerable time to die out ( a kerb is still a yard long and a sheet of ply still 8'x4') I suspect it will have been this way for a good while. 

 

[Compound2632]

Another one for the collection of Locomotive challenges for 2022:

 

 

A couple of months ago I reviewed locomotives for my North Birmingham-ish project, observing that Saltley was home to more 240 and 400 Class 0-6-0s than 700s. There were five there c. 1902, Nos. 299, 211, 212, 279, and 271 (in age order). The Slaters brass number etch could really do with having twice as many 1s and 2s as other digits...

Edited February 23, 2022 by Compound2632

[Miss Prism]

Oooooo, a Kirtley Goods!

[Rowsley17D]

 

Well on the way with my build. Markits' bits have arrived to finish it off once the grandson goes back home!

 

 

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, Rowsley17D said:

Well on the way with my build. Markits' bits have arrived to finish it off once the grandson goes back home!

 

Am following!

 

No faff about vac pipes for c. 1902. But the smokebox needs the rivets removing and a Johnson door; also a proper chimney will have to be procured.

[Rowsley17D]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Am following!

 

No faff about vac pipes for c. 1902. But the smokebox needs the rivets removing and a Johnson door; also a proper chimney will have to be procured.

 

With the tender build I forgot to say that a hole was drilled into the brass base plate so wires could go through for a decoder, speaker, stay-alive if there was not enough room in the boiler/smokebox. Also the tender top is still lose should I need to fit said decoder etc.