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

[billbedford]

Perhaps we can start a discussion about the photo with a view to trying to track down its location.

 

The lineside fencing is distinctive and the rail chairs appear to be two bolt. The lineside telegraph poles seem to be very simple for a four track railway. Perhaps the line is being upgraded.

 

Also I too am coming to the conclusion that the picture is posed. The lighting conditions seem to be pretty murky so the shutter speed on the camera would be very low, too low for a sharpish picture of the subject. The photo isn't very sharp (not just the engine) but this is likely to be a function of a non-to-good lens being used with a wide aperture. Would the GER permit an MR train being stopped for a photo on a four track line? Unlikely.

 

Other thoughts welcome

 

 

The photo fits Lea Bridge. The layout was of two double tracks. The lefthand pair went towards South Tottenham junction and on to Hertford. The righthand pair went to Hall Farm Junction and on to Walthamstow and Chingford. The two routes combined at Lea Bridge Junction situated behind the camera. The 1888-1913 six inch OS map shows a signal post in the right sort of place for that in the photo and a footpath crossing the railway presumably where the photographer was standing. The signals for Lea Bridge Junction are close to the Lea Bridge side of this path. It is likely that the train was stopped at these signals so that a train could pass on the Chingford line.

 

The train is heading south-east towards Temple Mills, and not from the docks as I originally thought.

[Lecorbusier]

I have to admit as far as I was aware the Midland only posed photos of its prestige trains, not lowly goods ....and I would have thought certainly not a 1F tank .... Happy to be proved wrong though. As a train it doesn't strike me as a significant subject. Also I doubt that an official photo would use GER metals. Bill's explanation that the train is held at the signal giving the photo op is perhaps the answer?

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Guy Rixon]

If it was an officially posed photo I'd expect it to be done with a better lens in decent weather. Is it possible that an amateur photographer bribed the crew to wait an extra minute in section while he got his shot? 

[Rail-Online]

There was an official photo of a MR Banana train - but even that is much more up market than a 1F on imported wood!

 

Tony

[Lecorbusier]

There was an official photo of a MR Banana train - but even that is much more up market than a 1F on imported wood!

 

Tony

Do you have a link .... I would like to see that.

[PenrithBeacon]

I’m by no means convinced that the MR had running powers to Temple Mills. Does anyone have access to GER Acts that awarded such powers? Or the WTT?

I’ve looked at the NLS maps and can find no MR infrastructure such as a goods shed at Temple Mills. It’s all GER

[Compound2632]

Do you have a link .... I would like to see that.

 

Midland Wagons Vol. 1 Plate 199.

 

Sorry I can't hyperlink to my bookshelf. Will get back to you about the D299 PM.

[Lecorbusier]

Thanks ... don't remember that .... walks over to bookcase to look at book.

[billbedford]

I’m by no means convinced that the MR had running powers to Temple Mills. Does anyone have access to GER Acts that awarded such powers? Or the WTT?

I’ve looked at the NLS maps and can find no MR infrastructure such as a goods shed at Temple Mills. It’s all GER

 

But the Midland did have a presence in both the West India Docks and the Royal Dock which was accessed over the GER. Temple Mills was only ever a marshalling yard for traffic coming off the docks. There were no goods sheds there belonging to any company.

[Lecorbusier]

Having contacted Barrow Hill, this advice would suggest that the range of the 1Fs were severely limited.

 

 

 

Water capacity of the 41807 was 740 gallons, coal capacity 2 tons 2 cwt.

Under load the water consumption per mile was said to be anything between 50 to 80 gallons although it was never really measured in these terms. Obviously it depended on how much weight was being pulled, the gradients involved, and how much standing about there was. Steam was also used for braking as you know and some were used for branch line passenger duty and were fitted with carriage warming apparatus, steam powered of course.

Please remember this is all hearsay as the locomotive really wasn't operated here at Barrow Hill.

 so perhaps little more that 10 miles between refills? Does that impact on anything? 10 miles seems to me to be a very short distance which would call in to question the 50 to 80 Gallon figure ... seems more likely for a top link express with a large loco and heavy train?

Edited September 20, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Penlan]

 There were no goods sheds there belonging to any company.

The only building(s) seem to be the wagon works.

Looking at the 1916 1:2500 map (via 'Old-Maps'), what a huge area of marshaling sidings.

[PenrithBeacon]

Having contacted Barrow Hill, this advice would suggest that the range of the 1Fs were severely limited.

 

so perhaps little more that 10 miles between refills? Does that impact on anything? 10 miles seems to me to be a very short distance which would call in to question the 50 to 80 Gallon figure ... seems more likely for a top link express with a large loco and heavy train?

I wonder about the water consumption of other Class 1 locomotives. Perhaps the only comparison.

[Compound2632]

I think we can safely conclude that they were adequate for operating goods trains between Childs Hill (Cricklewood or Brent if you must) and the Midland's various goods depots to the east of the City.

[billbedford]

I think you would find that water cranes were less than 10 miles apart on most routes that small tank engines operated.

[John_Miles]

1Fs were used on goods trains (they didn't become freight trains until quite late in the existence of the Midland) between Swansea and Brecon and Brecon and Hereford. They were also used on some of the passenger trains. So they did travel substantial distances, albeit, as mentioned above, with frequent stops for water.

[Compound2632]

1Fs were used on goods trains (they didn't become freight trains until quite late in the existence of the Midland) between Swansea and Brecon and Brecon and Hereford. They were also used on some of the passenger trains. So they did travel substantial distances, albeit, as mentioned above, with frequent stops for water.

 

These, of course, were the 1102 Class engines, all built with full cabs - as were those 1377 Class engines built specifically for branch line passenger and goods work. The London-based engines were all "half-cabs"; in the photo we see the engine running chimney first; I wonder if they were turned for the return run? I don't suppose running bunker first at goods train speeds would be any worse than tender-first with a 0-6-0 though still not pleasant. 

[Lecorbusier]

I wonder how relevant this might be but I have just heard back from the West Somerset railway regarding the water of their 4F. They are advising that with the 4 F they are achieving in excess of 20 miles per 740 gallons. Assuming that the 1Fs were lighter and the loads/work they were likely to be doing would have been less this perhaps places the range at 25 plus miles?

 

Another thought I have been given is.....

 

 

 

Since Johnson bogie tanks have been mentioned I can illustrate my doubts by reference to a regular working of such engines. No surprises that the example comes from Somerset and Dorset territory!

The Branch from Evercreech Junction to Burnham was 24 miles 19ch, with another mile back from Burnham to Highbridge (no water columns at Burnham), so we are dealing with a run about 25 miles in length, assuming no intermediate stops for water.

The first three passenger services of the day on the Branch (Down-Up-Down) were covered by the same diagram, which was designated as a 1P duty to be covered by a Highbridge engine. Regular performers were bogie tanks from the 1833 and 2228 classes, respectively with tank capacities of 1150 and 1270 gallons. The load would conventionally be two LMS non-gangwayed coaches plus a van, probably increased to two two-sets on the second Down service because of the unbalanced nature of the carriage workings.

At a consumption rate of 50 mpg, the implication is that about 1250 gallons would be consumed running each of these trains. In the case of 1833 class engines the injector would be blowing out on an empty tank as a Down train neared the top of Pylle Bank; not nice!

If we adopt a more generous estimate of 40mpg consumption comes back to 1000 gallons between taking water at Evercreech and Highbridge, which still doesn't leave a big margin for error on an 1833 class engine.

At a 20mpg consumption rate we get 500 gallons per service over the Branch, making a 50 mile round trip just about feasible, with water being taken on arrival at Evercreech of each of the two Down services. It should be borne in mind that in order to take water at Highbridge the engine would have to be detached from its train and visit the shed as there were no platform-mounted columns there. 

At a pinch it was feasible to take water at Glastonbury, which had columns for both Up and Down trains. However, there is no indication in the working timetable that Glastonbury was a designated water stop for any of these services, and dwell times at this station suggest that it was not used as such.

So, for a bogie tank on these duties, you are probably looking at a water range in the region of 50+ miles and a coal range of at least 80-90 miles (the second Down train of the day went on to Templecombe, and the engine is then shown in the diagram as going on shed, no doubt for coaling).

 

To me both of the above suggest that the range of the 1F would definitely have been over 20 miles and may well have been as good as 25-7 miles. 

[PenrithBeacon]

1Fs were used on goods trains (they didn't become freight trains until quite late in the existence of the Midland) between Swansea and Brecon and Brecon and Hereford. They were also used on some of the passenger trains. So they did travel substantial distances, albeit, as mentioned above, with frequent stops for water.

it was the LMS that introduced the concept of ‘freight ‘ in 1928 and with it the suffix ‘F’. The MR always used the title ‘Goods’ but didn’t use the ‘G’ as a suffix on the cab side. The S&DJR did though but not universally.

I hope that makes sense!

[billbedford]

it was the LMS that introduced the concept of ‘freight ‘ in 1928 and with it the suffix ‘F’. The MR always used the title ‘Goods’ but didn’t use the ‘G’ as a suffix on the cab side. The S&DJR did though but not universally.

 

 

 

Nope,

Goods, or cargo, was what was carried, freight was the charge made for the carriage. At some time and maybe in a land far away the two became confused.

[PenrithBeacon]

Nope,

Goods, or cargo, was what was carried, freight was the charge made for the carriage. At some time and maybe in a land far away the two became confused.

The concept of 'freight' originated in England before mechanised transport appeared. It is the carriage of multiple items in a cart, wagon or whatever as opposed to bulk carriage of one item, ie wagonload. The term freight wasn't used in UK railways because right from the beginning the railways went for wagonload with smaller individual items being carried in the brakevan or something similar. In the USA, the term became commonly used for all rail transport and when the LMS adopted US style management practices in 1928 it also adopted the word 'freight' as a generic term for all of its 'goods' trains.

 

Freight was one of the reasons why there were so many wayside pubs on the roads, they not only served to feed and water the mules and drivers but also as local distribution points for the 'freight'. This is the reason that so many wayside pubs have, still, such large car parks.

Edited September 22, 2018 by PenrithBeacon

[Martin S-C]

Fascinating discussion. So "goods" was a cargo that completely filled a wagon or railway truck? A goods train was a train in which every wagon carried a full load of a certain goods? The freight was then carried in the brake van, road van or maybe in one van within the goods train? Is that about right?

So all pre-1928 trains would be referred to as goods trains?

[PenrithBeacon]

Fascinating discussion. So "goods" was a cargo that completely filled a wagon or railway truck? A goods train was a train in which every wagon carried a full load of a certain goods? The freight was then carried in the brake van, road van or maybe in one van within the goods train? Is that about right?

 

So all pre-1928 trains would be referred to as goods trains?

I think you've misunderstood.

[Martin S-C]

In what way?

Edited September 22, 2018 by Martin S-C

[wagonman]

The GWR referred to their customers as 'freighters' – and what we all call PO wagons were known as 'Freighters' Wagons'. But they were conveyed by 'goods trains'...

[Compound2632]

"A goods train, the shame of it" - to quote a well-known literary pacific. I suspect it's being over-precise to pin one term or the other on them at any given period - besides which I think we've had this discussion elsewhere, possibly on Pregroup Pedants. My impression is that in the pre-grouping period at least, the principal distinction was between goods (i.e. merchandise) and mineral (coal, limestone, iron ore, etc.) - with, to some extent, different 0-6-0 engines designed for each - 5'2"-ish for goods and 4'7"-ish for mineral. By BR days there was a whole numbered classification system, tied in to point-to-point timings in the WTT.