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

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

Were these wagons very restricted in their routing, or did they get around a lot?

 

Well, that's a question. Since photographic evidence for them is, so far, limited to this one picture, taken just up the valley from their "To be returned to" location, it's hard to say. Possibly the Traffic Cttee minutes might indicate the traffic for which they were intended. That one of them is seen loaded with pit props might indicate a spelter works-to-port circuit, but this is a single data point - through which one cannot draw a line of best fit!  

 

2 minutes ago, Western Star said:

Satisfying to read that you understand the difference between hypothesis and theory; all I did was to talk to others who had appropriate / relevant knowledge and then put forward an idea as to the reason.  You have the credit for "proving" the hypothesis by way of the evidence (aka proof) of my idea.

 

Thank you, though I don't think there is yet proof - the link with the spelter industry is as yet still a hypothesis.

 

 

[Western Star]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

... I don't think there is yet proof...

Just for the record, what proof, do you think, might satisfy those who like to quibble?

 

Just to recap:-

 

* we have information from someone (Terry Dumbrell) who worked in the Zinc smelting plants at Avonmouth as to the need to keep the ingots "dry" so as to avoid accidents when the ingots were melted;

* we have a photograph of wagons which could be fit for purpose...  in a location not a million miles from the point of loading;

* we can see, from the photograph, that the wagons are written with instructions that are similar to those in an instruction from a relevant MR committee.

 

OK, so a holiday snap showing ingots being loaded into a wagon written as instructed (or seen) shall be a clincher...  at this remove I cannot see that happening.

 

Just thinking, if Bob was not aware of this type of MR wagon, does that imply that the wagons in the photo were not given a special-to-type MR Diagram Number?

 

regards, Graham

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Western Star said:

Just for the record, what proof, do you think, might satisfy those who like to quibble?

 

Just to recap:-

 

* we have information from someone (Terry Dumbrell) who worked in the Zinc smelting plants at Avonmouth as to the need to keep the ingots "dry" so as to avoid accidents when the ingots were melted;

* we have a photograph of wagons which could be fit for purpose...  in a location not a million miles from the point of loading;

* we can see, from the photograph, that the wagons are written with instructions that are similar to those in an instruction from a relevant MR committee.

 

OK, so a holiday snap showing ingots being loaded into a wagon written as instructed (or seen) shall be a clincher...  at this remove I cannot see that happening.

 

That, to my mind, amounts to strong circumstantial evidence. 

 

It's too late to add the relevant Traffic Cttee volume to my order for next Wednesday's visit to TNA but I'll put it down for the visit after.

 

5 minutes ago, Western Star said:

Just thinking, if Bob was not aware of this type of MR wagon, does that imply that the wagons in the photo were not given a special-to-type MR Diagram Number

 

As far as I can see, Bob Essery's main resources in compiling Midland Wagons were:

• A copy of the Diagram Book
• A copy of the Litchurch Lane C&W Works Lot List
• An album of official photographs
• Various private photographic collections, including his own.

What he didn't use, at least in a systematic fashion, were:

• The MR minute books and other MR records held at Kew (PRO in his day, TNA today)
• The Derby Museums collection of Litchurch Lane C&W drawings and the associated drawing register, now housed at the Midland Railway Study Centre.

In this he can be contrasted with Ralph Lacy; having looked at the minute books myself, it is evident from Midland Railway Carriages, that he had been through them with a fine-toothed comb - they are, in fact, his principal source. Where Bob Essery does give information from the minute books, such as the 1894 table of wagon stock, I think he had the information at second hand, possibly from Ralph Lacy.

 

But I am far from criticising Bob Essery's approach. It should be noted that Midland Railway Carriages was worked on over many years and Ralph Lacy did not live to see it published; we are fortunate that George Dow was able to bring it to a publishable form. On the other hand, Midland Wagons can hardly have taken more than three or four years to bring to publication, given that The LMS Wagon had been published only three years previously. By taking the route of publishing what he knew, knowing, I'm sure, that it was incomplete, he did the hobby a far greater service than if he had passed away leaving a vast pile of unpublished manuscripts, all awaiting the location of that final piece of the jigsaw. Even if half the pieces are missing, one can see what the picture is. What I and others are doing is putting in the odd piece here and there - which one couldn't do if Bob Essery hadn't already joined up all the edge pieces!

[Compound2632]

29 minutes ago, Western Star said:

Just thinking, if Bob was not aware of this type of MR wagon, does that imply that the wagons in the photo were not given a special-to-type MR Diagram Number?

 

I didn't answer the question! As this variant appeared in 1906, any diagram issued for it would be in the main numerical sequence D299 - D305 for open goods wagons (preceded by D293 - D298 for cattle wagons and followed by D306 - D341 for special open wagons). It looks to me as if the diagram book (carriages and wagons) was compiled around 1910, with any later designs being added to the end of the numerical sequence. However, diagrams D302 and D303 are anomalous, being for types introduced in 1913 and 1918 respectively - these might have taken diagram numbers from types that were extinct by those dates but still extant in 1910. 

 

There is also, I think, some evidence for an earlier diagram book, in which the numbering was different...

[Dave Hunt]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

By taking the route of publishing what he (Bob Essery) knew, knowing, I'm sure, that it was incomplete, he did the hobby a far greater service than if he had passed away leaving a vast pile of unpublished manuscripts, all awaiting the location of that final piece of the jigsaw. Even if half the pieces are missing, one can see what the picture is. What I and others are doing is putting in the odd piece here and there - which one couldn't do if Bob Essery hadn't already joined up all the edge pieces!

 

When Bob and I worked together on books and articles, he would often say that we should publish what we knew and if better or more information subsequently came to light, to disseminate it as widely as possible and that's what we used to do, having made sure, of course, that we had done a diligent search for information first. In the case of the locomotive books I would then gather the information that readers sent in and publish it in Midland Record and LMS Journal. We also used to state what we had pieced together from circumstantial evidence but always made it clear that it was only conjecture and invite comment and/or correction based on whatever readers knew that we didn't. As Bob said, "If we wait until every I is dotted and every T crossed we'll never publish anything; better to publish the best we can and hope that others can expand on it." The late, great David Tee, for instance, went to his grave having published only a small fraction of his almost encyclopaedic knowledge of Midland and LMS locomotives because he did want to cover every detail no matter how obscure before producing a manuscript, which is something a great many of us regret deeply. He did, however, make some of his material available to me so we were able to include it in our work. 

 

Dave  

Edited July 7, 2022 by Dave Hunt

[WFPettigrew]

Hi all - but especially Stephen,

 

I have been playing around with Inkscape to draw up a couple of Furness Railway wagon plates... 

 

 

Not perfect, but I think probably good enough when scaled down (to 4mm scale). 

 

What I then wanted to do was follow Stephen's method, up thread, of printing it out on photographic paper. 

 

Now, I fully accept that I own a cheap-as-chips inkjet printer (Canon TS 3150) - although the spec does suggest it should manage 1400 dpi (though no obvious way or telling to to improve it's resolution so I don't really know if it is bothering with this degree of resolution or not). 1400dpi amounts to 55 dots per mm, which ought to be good enough for my purposes, on something which is less than 2mm high. 

 

But the results are disappointing.  This is a (phone macro lens) image of the resulting print... The phone has made them look more red than they appear to the naked eye, probably due to the lighting.

 

 

Am I being over-optimistic about the print quality that would be achievable? 

 

Or is there a way of getting something that looks better than this? 

 

I am wary about going to the local photo printing shop because the printing was done direct from Inkscape, to control the dimensions (which worked) - and I am not sure whether that would be the case printing an image file like the png that is attached.

 

Thanks in advance for any advice!

 

All the best

 

Neil 

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, WFPettigrew said:

I have been playing around with Inkscape to draw up a couple of Furness Railway wagon plates... 

 

I used to use an HP Deskjet 3055A till it gave up. I now have an HP Deskjet 2720e that I don't like as much for various reasons which don't have to do with print quality. I'm afraid I haven't yet tried this printer for numberplates but I've no reason to suppose it will be any different.

 

I've drawn my numberplates in CorelDraw and printed direct from that. 

 

What is essential though is to make sure that you've set the printer settings to gloss photo paper (or whatever equivalent the dialogue offers) and best quality. This can be done via the print menu in Inkscape, assuming it's similar to other apps.

[Grahams]

I'm going to build a 5 inch gauge replica shunter's wagon for myself. Maybe it will become a kit, even also in other scales if there is interest.

It must be Midland or possibly LMS in origin. There is at least one GWR version in preservation. 

My wagons are strictly built to be as accurate to the original as possible. Hence I use photos of a specific wagon.

The only picture I can find is in Bob Essery's LMS Wagons V2 P191 (copied here). 

This one seems to be built from a Midland D305 or D818 low-sided wagon (3 plank). It has oil axleboxes, so more likely a D818 but they could have been changed from Ellis axleboxes during its life. It also has ribbed buffer guides which are a later alteration if the wagon began as a D305 or D818. I already have the 3D models of underframes for both D305 and D818 so I only have to design the modifications. 

Any suggestions for other origins of the wagon in the picture are very welcome.

I've searched and there are references to other wagons but not links to photos. There is also a model available which has some very useful notes but no references or sources of the information. I won't make models of models. 

Can anyone point me towards any other photos of Midland /LMS origin shunter's trucks/wagons/runners please?

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Grahams said:

I'm going to build a 5 inch gauge replica shunter's wagon for myself. Maybe it will become a kit, even also in other scales if there is interest.

It must be Midland or possibly LMS in origin. There is at least one GWR version in preservation. 

My wagons are strictly built to be as accurate to the original as possible. Hence I use photos of a specific wagon.

The only picture I can find is in Bob Essery's LMS Wagons V2 P191 (copied here). 

This one seems to be built from a Midland D305 or D818 low-sided wagon (3 plank). It has oil axleboxes, so more likely a D818 but they could have been changed from Ellis axleboxes during its life. It also has ribbed buffer guides which are a later alteration if the wagon began as a D305 or D818. I already have the 3D models of underframes for both D305 and D818 so I only have to design the modifications. 

Any suggestions for other origins of the wagon in the picture are very welcome.

 

Hi Graham, good to see you on here!

 

i think the wagon in the photo is converted from a D305 wagon to Drg, 3208, lot 891 or 901. It's D305 rather than D818 going by the relative position of the outer spring shoes and the solebar/headstock strap-bolts. It seems to have a D-shaped numberplate, which assuming it's not a replacement, points to post-1913 build, hence those two lots. As such, it was built with the oil axleboxes it's wearing. [For all this, there will be an article in the Midland Railway Society Journal later this year but it was summarised in my email to you 13 May.] The buffer guides have been replaced - I wonder if this was to extended the distance of buffer heads from the headstock in view of the instanter coupling (presumably fitted to give those travelling on the truck a smoother ride when coupled next to the engines). I note also the oval buffer heads. 

 

There is one other photo known to me, taking in Midland days, post-Great War*:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC item 64607.]

 

Here, I think the truck has its original buffers.

 

*I think I can see wagon numbers under the Ms on the D299s there.

 

I haven't found anythig in the C&W Drawing Register corresponding to these conversions but haven't looked very hard whereas I expect you have.

 

By the way, I continue to be interested in our discussion of the differences between D302 and D663A opens.

 

 

[WFPettigrew]

14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I used to use an HP Deskjet 3055A till it gave up. I now have an HP Deskjet 2720e that I don't like as much for various reasons which don't have to do with print quality. I'm afraid I haven't yet tried this printer for numberplates but I've no reason to suppose it will be any different.

 

I've drawn my numberplates in CorelDraw and printed direct from that. 

 

What is essential though is to make sure that you've set the printer settings to gloss photo paper (or whatever equivalent the dialogue offers) and best quality. This can be done via the print menu in Inkscape, assuming it's similar to other apps.

 Thank you Stephen.  I will have another go and double check I have the right settings all the way through the chain (i.e. both within Inkscape and anything that then comes up for a dialogue box for the printer itself). 

 

All the best

 

Neil 

[Grahams]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Hi Graham, good to see you on here!

 

i think the wagon in the photo is converted from a D305 wagon to Drg, 3208, lot 891 or 901. It's D305 rather than D818 going by the relative position of the outer spring shoes and the solebar/headstock strap-bolts. It seems to have a D-shaped numberplate, which assuming it's not a replacement, points to post-1913 build, hence those two lots. As such, it was built with the oil axleboxes it's wearing. [For all this, there will be an article in the Midland Railway Society Journal later this year but it was summarised in my email to you 13 May.] The buffer guides have been replaced - I wonder if this was to extended the distance of buffer heads from the headstock in view of the instanter coupling (presumably fitted to give those travelling on the truck a smoother ride when coupled next to the engines). I note also the oval buffer heads. 

 

There is one other photo known to me, taking in Midland days, post-Great War*:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of MRSC item 64607.]

 

Here, I think the truck has its original buffers.

 

*I think I can see wagon numbers under the Ms on the D299s there.

 

I haven't found anythig in the C&W Drawing Register corresponding to these conversions but haven't looked very hard whereas I expect you have.

 

By the way, I continue to be interested in our discussion of the differences between D302 and D663A opens.

 

 

Stephen, thanks very much for all this and indeed for your super article which dropped through my door this morning in the Midland Railway Society Journal.

It helps me very much to be able to assemble a D305 underframe with oil axleboxes because nearly all the parts are to hand. It will be my first D305 in fact. I'm still waiting for my lazy draughtsman (me) to finish the Ellis 10A drawing. He will have to draw the ribbed buffer guides but that should not tax him too much. 

The fact that the wagons appear to have no brake gear makes them easier to assemble although I am somewhat surprised that they were allowed to be used without it. I may be missing something. Perhaps they had one side brake gear and it is on the other side of the wagon. 

I have not been able to find reference to these wagons in the C&W register. Bob Essery wrote in LMS Wagons that the Midland does not appear to have recorded them. 

Is the picture you have posted available in higher resolution as a download please? I could not work out how to find it. 

[Grahams]

21 minutes ago, Grahams said:

Stephen, thanks very much for all this and indeed for your super article which dropped through my door this morning in the Midland Railway Society Journal.

It helps me very much to be able to assemble a D305 underframe with oil axleboxes because nearly all the parts are to hand. It will be my first D305 in fact. I'm still waiting for my lazy draughtsman (me) to finish the Ellis 10A drawing. He will have to draw the ribbed buffer guides but that should not tax him too much. 

The fact that the wagons appear to have no brake gear makes them easier to assemble although I am somewhat surprised that they were allowed to be used without it. I may be missing something. Perhaps they had one side brake gear and it is on the other side of the wagon. 

I have not been able to find reference to these wagons in the C&W register. Bob Essery wrote in LMS Wagons that the Midland does not appear to have recorded them. 

Is the picture you have posted available in higher resolution as a download please? I could not work out how to find it. 

I've just written to Kidderminster museum about the photo. 

[billbedford]

THere are drawings of ex LNWR shunting trucks in the LNWR Wagon Supplement. 

[Compound2632]

I went to the L&NWR Society Modelling Day today at the Kenilworth Study Centre. I took a box of wagons along, including some Midland, Great Western, and Private Owner ones, just to add a bit of variety. I felt I ought to take something recent along, so took a work-in-progress:

 

 

The Ratio kit "LMS Traffic Coal & 4-plank Wagon", currently available under the banner of "Parksinde Models by Peco", ref. PC 576, represents a LNWR open merchandise wagon to diagram D4 or D9 and coal wagon to D54. As previously discussed up-thread, D54 wagons, which are just a little too late for my c. 1902 date, were conversions of earlier D53 wagons, increased in volumetric capacity by the addition of a fifth plank, with a hinged lifting section over the drop door; they were given larger bearing surfaces to up-rate them from 8 tons to 10 tons capacity by weight. It is therefore a fairly simple conversion to backdate the D54 kit to D53 condition by removal of the top plank* and re-doing the diagonal straps. I've done this twice; the bottom wagon in the photo above is my second attempt, which has a more accurate representation of the brake gear, particularly the curved lever, than my first. 

 

*Getting to be a bit of an in thing with me! 

 

The model represents a wagon 15' 6" long over headstocks. As recounted in LNWR Wagons Vol. 3 and on the Society's website, the earlier batches of these wagons, built 1882-1889, numbering 3,560 out of the final stock of 6,845, were only 15' 0" long. The top, upside-down, model is intended to represent one of these; I hope it is obvious that it is 2 mm shorter! This was simply done by cutting a 1 mm slice out of each end of each side, next to the corner plate, then sticking the corner plate back on - this was surprisingly less troublesome than I had expected. The solebars also had 1 mm trimmed off each end.

 

The photo on the Society's website shows that these earlier D53 wagons had the simple single-shoe brake:

 

 

[Embedded link.]

 

I now see that in my haste to get this model built for the Modelling Day, I'd missed that this is the direct-action form of the brake, rather than the push-rod type provided for in the Ratio kit...

 

There was a superb display of rolling stock models in 4 mm (00, EM, and P4) and 7 mm, also Richard Ellis @Tricky's cut-away model of a LNWR signal box.

 

However the highlight was the exhibit and talk by Bob Williams, son of Geoff Williams of "Aylesbury" fame. It's well-known that Aylesbury Mk II, the loft layout that featured in MRN etc. in the 60s and 70s, is now in the loving hands of the Risborough & District Model Railway Club; I saw it at RailEx a few years ago. Bob now has the remains of Aylesbury Mk I, built in the late 1950s, which had been thought long gone. Geoff Williams had sold it when he started Mk II. It passed through various hands but had spent the last forty years or so stored in a garage. Unfortunately this garage was prone to flooding and the layout apparently spent quite some time under water. Much of it has had to be thrown away - it was riddled with live woodworm when Bob got it - but the station board and part of one other have been salvaged and restored; the station building in particular now looks remarkably good for a model built about 65 years ago and subjected to harsh treatment down the years!

 

I came away with more than I took with me but more on that another time.

 

It had been a toss-up whether to make the trip to Kenilworth this Saturday or next, for the Society's AGM - petrol being the price it is. The latter is a hybrid meeting, so I've chosen to attend by Zoom. Please could I encourage any L&NWR Society members reading this who have not already done so to sign up to participate. (PM me if you don't know what that is all about!)

Edited July 9, 2022 by Compound2632

[41516]

While D54s have risen to to the top again and as I'm still waiting for a replacement underframe kit (on backorder with Peco, apparently), a question of brakes.  Would most D54s have seen out their life retaining the single side brakes only and not have had second independant set installed on the opposite side before scrapping?

[Compound2632]

21 hours ago, 41516 said:

While D54s have risen to to the top again and as I'm still waiting for a replacement underframe kit (on backorder with Peco, apparently), a question of brakes.  Would most D54s have seen out their life retaining the single side brakes only and not have had second independant set installed on the opposite side before scrapping?

 

LNWR Wagons Vol 3, p. 15, says:

• the number of conversions was probably 1,010
• the total of 3,464 10-ton traffic coal wagons in the 1919 wagon stock list does not distinguish between D54 and the later D90 but that 960 had grease axleboxes so were certainly D54
• the balance of 50 D54 wagons had either been given oil axleboxes or been withdrawn
• 847 of both types had brakes on one side only

D90 wagons were built with both-side brakes, therefore the 847 one-side only braked wagons were D54 and further, one can conclude that 113 D54 wagons had been given both side brakes by 1919 (text says "around 150"). These numbers are a bit rough since some D90 wagons, ostensibly built with oil axleboxes, were recorded with grease axleboxes.

 

So were further D54 wagons given both-side brakes after 1919? Although converted at the rate of 100 a year from 1905 onwards (after an initial batch of 10 in 1902) these wagons originated in the  early 1890s so by the early 20s would be due for renewal anyway.

 

From the very limited evidence, I suspect the D54s kept the curved brake lever they were built with as D53; whether this was replicated on the additional set is, I think, anyone's guess. LNWR Wagons Vol. 3 has a grand total of one photo of the type, a J.P. Richards shot of one in rather worn livery, though the LNWR Society website has a photo of one fresh out of the paintshop:

 

 

[Embedded link] (Don't worry about lining your transfers up with the planking, chaps.)

 

Both have one-side brakes. Note the release lever for the bottom doors, very clear in both photos. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Compound2632
sp.

[John-Miles]

On 06/07/2022 at 21:10, Compound2632 said:

Nearly five years ago, only a year into this topic, there was discussion of a photo of Ynysygeinon Sidings on the Midland's Swansea Vale line, in which were identified some Midland D299 wagons sporting sheet support bars - something which, as far as those contributing to the discussion were concerned, was previously unknown. The full photo, held by the NRM, is reproduced in J. Miles, K. Thomas, and T. Watkins, The Swansea Vale Railway (Lightmoor Press, 2017) p. 129. @Western Star posted the relevant section of the photo, which I re-post here:

 

 

The hypothesis advanced by Graham and others was that sheet support bars might be required in connection with spelter traffic, the Swansea Vale line serving a number of zinc smeltinc works and it being especially important to keep either the zinc ingots free of moisture and / or dust, as I understood the discussion.

 

I spent another day at TNA today, working through the Midland Carriage & Wagon Committee minute books. I have been working through books 9 and 10 [TNA RAIL 491/258-9]. Right near the end of the former is minute No. 4561 of 14 June 1906:

 

Sheet support for wagons

               Read Traffic Committee minute No. 34334, as follows:-

              "Resolved that one hundred wagons, to be lettered “To be returned to Six Pit” be fitted with Williams’ Patent Sheet Supporter at a cost of £3:8:0 per vehicle, or a total of £340, and the matter was referred to the Carriage and Wagon Committee."

               Ordered

                              To be referred to the General Purposes Committee.

 

The General Purposes Committee was with one with the power to approve additional expenditure; it did so by its minute No. 13741, as recorded by Carriage and Wagon Committee minute No. 4567 of 6 July 1906.

 

I have not looked a any of the Traffic Committee minute books. It is possible that more information on the traffic for which these wagons were required is contained therein.

 

The minute say the wagons were to be lettered "To be returned to Six Pit"; the evidence of the photo is that the wording was different. Various suggestions were made: "Swansea Vale Sidings/District/ Junction". I'm now inclined to think the wording is "To be returned to Swansea Vale Junction" as that location is essentially the same as Six Pit Junction:

 

 

The RCH Junction Diagram calls it "Swansea Valley Junction", which is also the name given on the Midland Railway Distance Diagram, but I think the middle word on the wagons is too short to be "Valley" so is probably "Vale".

 

 

Six Pit fits very neatly with the theory about spelter traffic. There was a major zinc smelting plant at Llansamlet just to the north of Six Pit owned by Imperial Smelting. I have some of the plates from their wagons which state "Return to Six Pit". 

[Western Star]

35 minutes ago, John-Miles said:

I have some of the plates from their wagons which state "Return to Six Pit". 

Which wagons?

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, Western Star said:

Which wagons?

 

@John-Miles, I read your comment as referring to plates off PO wagons of the imperial Smelting Co. - is that correct?

[Regularity]

54 minutes ago, John-Miles said:

Six Pit fits very neatly with the theory about spelter traffic. There was a major zinc smelting plant at Llansamlet just to the north of Six Pit owned by Imperial Smelting. I have some of the plates from their wagons which state "Return to Six Pit". 

Question, were the wagons used inbound with ore, or outbound with loads, and if so, to where?

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Regularity said:

Question, were the wagons used inbound with ore, or outbound with loads, and if so, to where?

 

That is the question!

 

Wishing to avoid undue repetition, please can I refer readers to @Western Star's post, which gives the background on the zinc smelting industry:

 

 

[John-Miles]

21 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

@John-Miles, I read your comment as referring to plates off PO wagons of the imperial Smelting Co. - is that correct?

Yes, see attached.

[Compound2632]

No. 2 Son is honing his walking bass technique with the aid of a borrowed electric bass. That and it's:

 

 

for modelling (whatever Ms Miller thinks). I was working on part II of an article on Midland low-side wagons but am loosing focus. So here's another little dip in the C&W minutes:

 

Please open your copy of Essery's Midland Wagons Vol. 1 at pp. 101-2, 30 ton bogie coal wagons. There three diagrams are listed:

• D346, Leeds Forge
• D347, American
• D348, Birmingham

The Leeds Forge wagons are the only type illustrated; they were written up in the Locomotive Magazine, November 1902 (thanks to @Crimson Rambler for sending me a scan of the article). It is known that there were thirty of them. They had pressed steel bogies, pressed steel being the Leeds Forge company's business and claim to fame. (I think we had a discussion of this upthread.)

 

[Embedded link to MRSC catalogue thumbnail of item 64098.]

 

Essery conjectures that there might only have been single examples of the other types. However, there is a document "Valuation of Midland Railway Carriage Stock as at December 1905" [MRSC item 77-11822] which gives a total of 70 vehicles in the category "Coke & Coal Trucks (Bogie)".

 

Now, turning to the Carriage & Wagon Committee minutes, the first mention of such wagons is in November 1901, when Clayton presented a plan for such a thing. Tenders were obtained from Brown, Marshall, Lancaster RC&W Co., Leeds Forge, and Midland RC&W Co., none of these found favour; tenders were then obtained from Gloucester RC&W Co., the Ashbury and Oldbury Cos., and Messrs Sheffield Twinberrow; and finally in January from Birmingham RC&W Co, but the matter was postponed. It was taken up again in March 1902, with the General Manager, John Mathieson, is reported as proposing that tenders be obtained for fifty wagons and by the end of that month tenders had been obtained from Leeds Forge for thirty at £250 each, with delivery by the end of June, and from the Birmigham RC&W Co. for ten to a Midland drawing at £218 10s each and ten with diamond-frame bogies at £210, all to be delivered within 8 weeks. It was agreed that these would all be charged to renewal account on the basis of one bogie wagon replacing three 8-ton trucks. 

 

The "Midland drawing" is probably Drg. 1555, dated 19 February 1902, "30 Ton Bogie Wagon"; the Midland Railway Study Centre has this in its collection:

 

 

[Compressed scan of MRSC item 88-D1804.]

 

With its fabricated plate bogies and queenpost-trussed frame, this obviously corresponds to D347 in Midland Wagons, so either the descriptions or the diagrams for the Birmingham and American types have been transposed; D348, with its gondola-type frame (like the Leeds Forge wagons) and diamond-frame bogies looks much more "American" to my eyes. (Or one could suppose that the two diagrams represent the two types the Birmingham RC&W Co. built. My problem with that is that the bodies look quite different in the diagrams. anyway, read on...)

 

The following November, David Bain, Clayton's successor as Carriage & Wagon Superintendent, reported that the Leeds Forge order was completed on 8th September and the Birmingham order on 20th October - a bit behind schedule.

 

So that accounts for 50 out of 70 wagons but the other 20 remained a mystery, until I got to the meeting of 23 July 1903, minute 4198:

 

Twenty 30 ton wagons

               Read Traffic Committe minute No. 33125, as follows:-

             "The General Manager reported that Mr A.W. Maconochie, M.P., offers to the Company twenty 30-ton trucks at £100 each, a total of £2000; that the Carriage and Wagon Superintendent has examined the wagons and states that they are a distinct bargain at the price, although to make them suitable for Midland purposes, it will be necessary to fit them with new bogies etc. at an estimated cost of £50 per vehicle, a total of £1000, making the gross outlay £3000.

               Resolved that the trucks be purchased and altered as proposed, and the matter was referred to the Carriage and Wagon Committee."

               Ordered

                              That the same be referred to the General Purposes Committee with a recommendation that these trucks replace 42 open goods wagons.

 

Financial approval from the General Purposes Committee was obtained at the beginning of August.

 

Now, the C&W Drawing Register contains several drawings relating to modifications to 30 ton bogie wagons, from Nov/Dec 1903, notably:

• Drg. 1882, "Alteration to Bogie for 30 Ton Coal Wagon"
• Drg. 1897, "30 Ton Bogie Coal Wagon American"
• Drg. 1890, "Arrangement of Buffing and Draw Gear on 30 Ton Coal Wagon"

The Study Centre also has these; here's the "American", Drg. 1897:

 

 

[Compressed scan of MRSC item 88-D1809.]

 

The resemblance to D348 in Midland Wagons is obvious.

 

So that's all 70 accounted for. But who was A.W. Maconochie and what was he doing with twenty 30-ton bogie coal wagons up his sleeve?

 

 

[Embedded link to a 1901 photograph of Archibald White Maconochie, by Sir John Benjamin Stone, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.]

 

Being an MP, he has a Wikipedia entry, from which we learn that he was a canned herring magnate, whose firm had factories in Fraserborough and Lowestoft, branching out into inedible tinned army rations. He was for a while MP for the constituency in which his Scottish factory was sited, but got into trouble for his prolonged absences in the United States when Parliament was sitting; interestingly, in the period March 1902 - March 1903. 

 

One has to dig a bit deeper to find any railway connection: according to Grace's Guide, he was a director of the Great Eastern Railway. So I wonder if he had bought these wagons in the United States as a speculation but they had been turned down by the the Great Eastern? Can any GE aficionado cast any light on this?

 

For more on Maconochie and his unpleasantly anti-union business and political activites, see here, and for his even more noxious views on immigration by Eastern European Jews, here. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by Compound2632
Bit more added from the minutes.

[Schooner]

30 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

walking bass technique

If that's enough to derail modeling mojo then best hope he's yet to come across Louis Johnson, Bootsy, Wooten or Mononeon...not sure my parents ever recovered!

[Compound2632]

Just now, Schooner said:

If that's enough to derail modeling mojo then best hope he's yet to come across Louis Johnson, Bootsy, Wooten or Mononeon...not sure my parents ever recovered!

 

Nothing wrong with the practicing as such; it was really the close proximity of the amp in this,  the coolest room in the house. We're fortunate that next door's son also has an electric guitar.