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

[wagonman]

"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.

 

 

The classification system for trains (not just goods train) long pre-dates BR, though the old companies generally used letters rather than numbers.

[John_Miles]

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!

 

Not so at least for the Midland WTTs I have studied. "Goods" was replaced by "Freight" sometime around 1910. The Midland had a fact finding mission to the USA just a few years before and I wonder if this is why the change occurred. Stephen is right about there being Goods and Minerals, the other classification was Empties.

[Nick Holliday]

Quote

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?

 

Although not actually referring to Midland locos, the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway carried out some interesting research into coal and water consumption which might be of interest.

A Terrier used 524 gallons pulling 6 carriages over 23¾ miles - a meagre 22 gallons per mile (not mpg!)

An E1 tank, similar to the Midland loco, used 2,010 gallons dragging 29 wagons over 28½ miles at 14.7 mph - a mighty 70½ gallons per mile

A D1 tank, similar in size to the E1, however, could pull 13 carriages at twice the average speed using 2,328 gallons, over 106¾ miles - another meagre 22 gpm.

A C goods loco, quite powerful for its time, consumed 7,260 gallons pulling 41 wagons working 103½ miles - another thirsty 70 gpm!

The elegant G single, however, pulling 14 carriages over 50¾ miles sipped just 1,620 gallons, running at 39 mph - 30 gallons per mile

Just to demonstrate how train weights and speed could affect consumption, tests with a Gladstone 0-4-2 running between London Bridge and Brighton (50 miles or so) produced the following:

Light train (15 carriages / 170 tons) and little wind, at 32½ mph average consumed 964 gallons - only 19 gpm

Heavier train (20 carriages / 228 tons) and slight head wind, at 33.3 mph required 1,483 gallons - 29 gpm

Heaviest (24 carriages / 275 tons) and strong head wind, running at 43.3 mph consumption went up to 1,813 gallons - 36 gallons per mile

In another exercise, Stroudley, to justify his designs, determined that condensing improved water consumption by around 15-20%, so a non-condensing loco might be thirstier than these figures show.

These figures are in line with the Barrow Hill information - the E1, with the train in the picture would probably have managed some 15 miles or so, given that the load is half that in the tests.

Given these gpm results, it shows how the Southern group companies could manage non-stop runs on all their routes with tender locos, without needing water troughs, although the distance on the LSWR from Waterloo to Salisbury, where all locos were changed, meant that some of their locos had to be provided with massive bogie tenders to safely accomplish the task.

The Brighton later adopted large tanks for express purposes, and they were provided with suitable water capacity, in excess of 2,000 gallons to makesure there was sufficient range. Notably, specially prepared superheated I3 Atlantic tanks managed to run 90½ miles, non-stop, in trials with the LNWR, at an average rate of around 20½ gpm, compared with the LNWR's tender loco's 37 gpm. (Coal consumption was 28 lb/mile and 41 lb/m respectively) In normal working, over a 15 hour working day, the saturated pioneer I3 No 21 recorded daily figures of around 33 gallons per train mile, although there were several miles of light engine running, and it was noted that up to 55 gallons of water might be discharged onto the track by the injectors fitted to other express classes.

[Lecorbusier]

Although not actually referring to Midland locos, the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway carried out some interesting research into coal and water consumption which might be of interest.

A Terrier used 524 gallons pulling 6 carriages over 23¾ miles - a meagre 22 gallons per mile (not mpg!)

An E1 tank, similar to the Midland loco, used 2,010 gallons dragging 29 wagons over 28½ miles at 14.7 mph - a mighty 70½ gallons per mile

A D1 tank, similar in size to the E1, however, could pull 13 carriages at twice the average speed using 2,328 gallons, over 106¾ miles - another meagre 22 gpm.

A C goods loco, quite powerful for its time, consumed 7,260 gallons pulling 41 wagons working 103½ miles - another thirsty 70 gpm!

The elegant G single, however, pulling 14 carriages over 50¾ miles sipped just 1,620 gallons, running at 39 mph - 30 gallons per mile

Just to demonstrate how train weights and speed could affect consumption, tests with a Gladstone 0-4-2 running between London Bridge and Brighton (50 miles or so) produced the following:

Light train (15 carriages / 170 tons) and little wind, at 32½ mph average consumed 964 gallons - only 19 gpm

Heavier train (20 carriages / 228 tons) and slight head wind, at 33.3 mph required 1,483 gallons - 29 gpm

Heaviest (24 carriages / 275 tons) and strong head wind, running at 43.3 mph consumption went up to 1,813 gallons - 36 gallons per mile

In another exercise, Stroudley, to justify his designs, determined that condensing improved water consumption by around 15-20%, so a non-condensing loco might be thirstier than these figures show.

These figures are in line with the Barrow Hill information - the E1, with the train in the picture would probably have managed some 15 miles or so, given that the load is half that in the tests.

Given these gpm results, it shows how the Southern group companies could manage non-stop runs on all their routes with tender locos, without needing water troughs, although the distance on the LSWR from Waterloo to Salisbury, where all locos were changed, meant that some of their locos had to be provided with massive bogie tenders to safely accomplish the task.

The Brighton later adopted large tanks for express purposes, and they were provided with suitable water capacity, in excess of 2,000 gallons to makesure there was sufficient range. Notably, specially prepared superheated I3 Atlantic tanks managed to run 90½ miles, non-stop, in trials with the LNWR, at an average rate of around 20½ gpm, compared with the LNWR's tender loco's 37 gpm. (Coal consumption was 28 lb/mile and 41 lb/m respectively) In normal working, over a 15 hour working day, the saturated pioneer I3 No 21 recorded daily figures of around 33 gallons per train mile, although there were several miles of light engine running, and it was noted that up to 55 gallons of water might be discharged onto the track by the injectors fitted to other express classes.

Nick,

 

This is very interesting. You don't indicate what the aprox weights of the goods trains might have been?

 

The Gladstone comparison is fascinating. From this one can maybe conclude (I think?) that within an acceptable margin of error you can pretty much divide the water consumption by the number of units (carriages/wagons) to arrive at a consumption per unit. So with the Gladstone the lighter train has a consumption of ±1.26 gpm per carriage, whilst the heavy is 1.45 and the heaviest is 1.5. (assuming the variation is the wind you mention)

 

Applying this logic to the figures you have for the E1 tank (which you say is comparable to the 1F) then we arrive at a figure of 2.4gpm per wagon.

 

The photo of the 1F I calculate as being a train of 12 wagons. So using the 2.4 multiplier (on the Gladstone figures this would be conservative) we would get a water usage of 12 x 2.4 = 28.8 gpm for this particular train. So if we have a tank capacity of 740 gallons, and we assume a 25% safety margin, then that would give a safe range of 19 - 20 miles. I don't know what period the figures were for the E1 tank, but the D299 pre war had a tare weight of 5 tons & loading 8 Tons (edited following Bill's correction).... so if with the E1 we are talking about 10 or 12 ton wagons, the consumption figures would improve again.

 

Does this reasoning work?

Edited September 24, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[billbedford]

Applying this logic to the figures you have for the E1 tank (which you say is comparable to the 1F) then we arrive at a figure of 2.4gpm per wagon.

 

The photo of the 1F I calculate as being a train of 12 wagons. So using the 2.4 multiplier (on the Gladstone figures this would be conservative) we would get a water usage of 12 x 2.4 = 28.8 gpm for this particular train. So if we have a tank capacity of 740 gallons, and we assume a 25% safety margin, then that would give a safe range of 19 - 20 miles. I don't know what period the figures were for the E1 tank, but the D299 pre war had a tare weight of 8 tons .... so if with the E1 we are talking about 10 or 12 ton wagons, the consumption figures would improve again.

 

Does this reasoning work?

 

 

 

No

 

D.299 had a tare weight of 5T - 2c - 3q and it was sprung to take a load of 8 tons. So the weight in a train would be anything between just over 5 tons and just over 13 tons.

 

I wonder if Shroudley weighted his stock for these experiments.

[Lecorbusier]

No

 

D.299 had a tare weight of 5T - 2c - 3q and it was sprung to take a load of 8 tons. So the weight in a train would be anything between just over 5 tons and just over 13 tons.

 

I wonder if Shroudley weighted his stock for these experiments.

Do 10T and 12T wagons have the same tare weight as 8T?

[Lecorbusier]

This may or may not be of interest to people. I was in correspondence with Dave Harris at the Midland Railway study  centre over another matter and I posed the question about the 1F and running over GER metals. his response was...

 

I hope the attached extract from our RFB20628 London Depots plan helps.  From the key: green lines are MR owned, the green dots are lines with MR running powers, the ‘hatched’ green line is the LTS and the purple is the GE. The green filled circles are MR owned goods depots.

As you’ll see, there are at least six Midland goods depots which a MR goods train would need to pass through Lea Bridge to access. Whilst I fully accept the caption that photographs of such workings may be rare, I strongly suspect the workings themselves would be very common. I don’t have a working timetable to hand, but a bit of time spent digging therein would establish just how frequent.

 

Hope this helps,

 

[Nick Holliday]

Nick,

 

This is very interesting. You don't indicate what the aprox weights of the goods trains might have been?

 

The Gladstone comparison is fascinating. From this one can maybe conclude (I think?) that within an acceptable margin of error you can pretty much divide the water consumption by the number of units (carriages/wagons) to arrive at a consumption per unit. So with the Gladstone the lighter train has a consumption of ±1.26 gpm per carriage, whilst the heavy is 1.45 and the heaviest is 1.5. (assuming the variation is the wind you mention)

 

Applying this logic to the figures you have for the E1 tank (which you say is comparable to the 1F) then we arrive at a figure of 2.4gpm per wagon.

 

The photo of the 1F I calculate as being a train of 12 wagons. So using the 2.4 multiplier (on the Gladstone figures this would be conservative) we would get a water usage of 12 x 2.4 = 28.8 gpm for this particular train. So if we have a tank capacity of 740 gallons, and we assume a 25% safety margin, then that would give a safe range of 19 - 20 miles. I don't know what period the figures were for the E1 tank, but the D299 pre war had a tare weight of 5 tons & loading 8 Tons (edited following Bill's correction).... so if with the E1 we are talking about 10 or 12 ton wagons, the consumption figures would improve again.

 

Does this reasoning work?

It's possible, as it is reasonable to expect there to be some correlation between load and consumption.  There are no weights given for the two goods train workings and bear in mind that the date for these results was around 1883 (or P4 as it was known). Another way to look at it is to observe that each passenger carriage weighed, on average, 11 tons, so that, to a degree, one weighed the same as a loaded wagon, hence the E1 was probably pulling a longer and heavier train than the Gladstone. Especially in those days, the resistance of a goods wagon, probably grease axleboxes etc., would be greater than a well maintained passneger carriage, which would account for the greater coal and water consumption. It should also be noted that the E1, with 900 gallon tank capacity, would have had to stop for water twice or more on its 28 mile journey, around every ten miles or so.

As for tare weights, these could vary quite considerably between apparently identical wagons, and the greater capacity wagons (10 and 12 ton loads) would probably be heavier, if only because the springs and perhaps axles had to be stronger and heavier, and obviously the bodywork had to be larger to accommodate the proposed maximum load.

It is impossible to draw firm conclusions from the following, but in 1885 Stroudley carried out more tests to determine the indicated horse power of various classes, and for the Gladstone, G Single and D1 classes, the trial loadings were roughly similar to the loads of the earlier tests, but the C goods loco was given 795 tons to haul, which equates to 66 wagons laden to an overall weight of 12 tons - quite a train for one of the southern lines. Unfortunately consumption figures weren't given in Bradley's account of these tests. I don't have any evidence to suggest that the earlier tests were specially loaded, they seem to be observations of normal working. BTW, the heaviest Gladstone trip was subjected to delays due to fallen leaves and damp rails causing severe slipping and slow starts, so nothing changes!

[Lecorbusier]

I now have some contemporary figures to contrast and compare .... namely the West Somerset's 4f. The average water consumption for their 20 mile working is 750 gallons. This is pulling six 37 ton carriages .... so a total train weight of 222 tons. The gpm is 37.5 .... which interestingly is not as efficient as the 29 gpm achieved by the Gladstone 228 tons and the max speed for the 4F is limited to 25mph. If we divide the 37.5gpm by the 222 we get 0.17gpmpt (gallons per mile per ton) I know this is not very scientific but if we assume the maximum loading for D299s at 13T and assume a train of 12 wagons, then roughly that would equate to 156 x 0.17 = 26.52 gpm. This would give a range of 28miles to 740 gallons - so effective range of say 21-22 miles.

 

This figure is remarkably similar to my projections for the E1 tank .... bearing in mind that I have assumed 13t overall weight for the D299s. 

 

It suggests to me that for a smallish local goods working (10-15 8T wagons) the range of a Johnson 1F 0-6-0 T would have been 22-25 miles dependent on terrain. It would also suggest that such tanks could be sent solo over relatively large distances to shunt station yards. Interesting.

[Compound2632]

As a check on these water consumption figures, consider the range of a Midland 4-4-0 or 4-2-2 of the 1880s/90s running non-stop to Leicester or Nottingham - with a 3250 gal tender, consumption must have routinely been under 25 gal/mile, with a train of around 120 tons - 160 tons - so in the region of 0.13 gal/mile.ton, including the mass of the engine and tender. One would expect a non-stop express run to see a locomotive working most efficiently; it's interesting this figure is around 2/3 of Lecorbusier's estimate for the 4F.

[Lecorbusier]

As a check on these water consumption figures, consider the range of a Midland 4-4-0 or 4-2-2 of the 1880s/90s running non-stop to Leicester or Nottingham - with a 3250 gal tender, consumption must have routinely been under 25 gal/mile, with a train of around 120 tons - 160 tons - so in the region of 0.13 gal/mile.ton, including the mass of the engine and tender. One would expect a non-stop express run to see a locomotive working most efficiently; it's interesting this figure is around 2/3 of Lecorbusier's estimate for the 4F.

I suspect that the engines were newer and so more efficient and the crews more skilled in conserving coal and water. I would also suspect that water consumption is more efficient when running at speed due to the reduced cut off?

[Andy Hayter]

.....and don't forget the impact of compounding.

[Compound2632]

On 24/09/2018 at 19:23, Andy Hayter said:

.....and don't forget the impact of compounding.

 

I was speaking of the simple engines - which were contemporary with the 1377 Class 0-6-0Ts under discussion. Johnson moved from slide to piston valves for express passenger engines around 1893, under the influence of W.M. Smith who was of course also the big influence on the compounds. The merits of piston valves include much freer passage of steam to the cylinders; we'll need an expert to tell us if this also reduces water consumption.

 

Which prompts me to suggest that the comparison with the 4F figures Lecorbusier quotes is not all that helpful as the 4F not only has piston valves but is superheated - the latter significantly reduces water consumption. The use of D.E. Marsh's large superheated tank engines to work the "Sunny South Special" to Rugby made Crewe sit up and take notice, whence the George the Fifth and Prince of Wales classes.

 

All this discussion of the 1377 Class engines has also finally persuaded me to air one of my stopped-halfway projects:

 

 

Craftsman kit, of course. I stopped at the point where I would need to do some whitemetal soldering; this was before I'd learnt that art. Also, the rather large handrail knob holes on the smokebox were worrying me - for my period there should be only one handrail stanchion on the somkebox wrapper. I think there's something wonky about the cab, too. The flash photography emphasises the solder over-run; I have to say that looking at it in the flesh again it's not as bad-looking as I remembered!

 

No. 1092 was a Birmingham engine for many years, though Summerson says that it was at Derby in 1892 and (perhaps conveniently) allocation unknown in 1899-1902. At the time I soldered on the Slater's numbers, the only allocation information I had was from Hawkins & Reeve, LMS Engine Sheds, Vol. 2.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[Lecorbusier]

Which prompts me to suggest that the comparison with the 4F figures Lecorbusier quotes is not all that helpful as the 4F not only has piston valves but is superheated - the latter significantly reduces water consumption. 

Perhaps not directly ... but I still find it interesting.

[Trog]

So if it is conveyed by ship it is cargo.

If it is transported in a car it is a shipment.

If it is a wagon load in a freight train it is goods.

If it is a parcel in a goods brake van it is freight.

 

All starting to make sense now. 

 

Presumably if it is in the back of a van on a wagon in train ferry it is very confused, and goes into hysterics if you shunt a brake van anywhere near it.     

[Compound2632]

So if it is conveyed by ship it is cargo.

If it is transported in a car it is a shipment.

If it is a wagon load in a freight train it is goods.

If it is a parcel in a goods brake van it is freight.

 

All starting to make sense now. 

 

Presumably if it is in the back of a van on a wagon in train ferry it is very confused, and goes into hysterics if you shunt a brake van anywhere near it.     

 

It's all luggage, really.

[Guy Rixon]

It's all luggage, really.

 

Which is exactly what the L&B used to call it, in the days when they were too posh to move goods. They even had "luggage engines". 

[Northroader]

It's all luggage, really.

Conversation with my son would show it’s covered by the designation “stuff”.

[PenrithBeacon]

This may or may not be of interest to people. I was in correspondence with Dave Harris at the Midland Railway study centre over another matter and I posed the question about the 1F and running over GER metals. his response was...

Thanks for that, most helpful

[billbedford]

Only in the sense that 10 and 12 ton wagons were built later and so tended to be bigger and have different brake gear.

 

D.302 was rated at 10 tons and had a tare of 5 - 5 - 0 

[Buhar]

I understood that company wagons (at least) were tared individually and so the given weights could vary a little bit within a diagram.  I'm guessing that as the tare weight was given so accurately they were also re-calibrated from time to time to account for repairs and wear.

[Compound2632]

Yes, the tare weights Bill gives are the ones given in the diagram book and hence nominal. It was important to know the tare weight of each individual wagon to the nearest quarter so that the weight of bulk loads could be determined and hence correctly charged. 

[John_Miles]

I was speaking of the simple engines - which were contemporary with the 1377 Class 0-6-0Ts under discussion. Johnson moved from slide to piston valves for express passenger engines around 1893, under the influence of W.M. Smith who was of course also the big influence on the compounds. The merits of piston valves include much freer passage of steam to the cylinders; we'll need an expert to tell us if this also reduces water consumption.

 

Which prompts me to suggest that the comparison with the 4F figures Lecorbusier quotes is not all that helpful as the 4F not only has piston valves but is superheated - the latter significantly reduces water consumption. The use of D.E. Marsh's large superheated tank engines to work the "Sunny South Special" to Rugby made Crewe sit up and take notice, whence the George the Fifth and Prince of Wales classes.

 

All this discussion of the 1377 Class engines has also finally persuaded me to air one of my stopped-halfway projects:

 

Midland 1377 Class No. 1092 WIP.JPG

 

Craftsman kit, of course. I stopped at the point where I would need to do some whitemetal soldering; this was before I'd learnt that art. Also, the rather large handrail knob holes on the smokebox were worrying me - for my period there should be only one handrail stanchion on the somkebox wrapper. I think there's something wonky about the cab, too. The flash photography emphasises the solder over-run; I have to say that looking at it in the flesh again it's not as bad-looking as I remembered!

 

No. 1092 was a Birmingham engine for many years, though Summerson says that it was at Derby in 1892 and (perhaps conveniently) allocation unknown in 1899-1902. At the time I soldered on the Slater's numbers, the only allocation information I had was from Hawkins & Reeve, LMS Engine Sheds, Vol. 2.

 

Might I suggest you get a Gibson dome for your loco rather than the Craftsman white metal lump. Having built three 1377s, the first with the Craftsman dome and the other two with Gibsons, I have learned from my mistake. 

[Lecorbusier]

Another Basic question I am afraid. Looking at the D299 circa 1902, what wheels would have been typical .... ie number of spokes and would they have been split spoke or not?

 

Thanks

[Rail-Online]

Another Basic question I am afraid. Looking at the D299 circa 1902, what wheels would have been typical .... ie number of spokes and would they have been split spoke or not?

 

Thanks

3ft 1" Split Spoke (8 spoke) were the MR almost universal standard from the year dot......

 

Tony