PO wagons, how did it work in practise?

[Wickham Green]

There was nothing odd about the arrangement at all. Railways were invented in the North East specifically in order to run coal from the pits to loading staithes on the rivers or at coastal ports such as Blyth, using their own track, their own wagons and their own locos, and this very largely remained the case until coal stopped being won. 

 

Where the railway companies came in was hauling coal to inland destinations and in the North East this was most conveniently done in railway company wagons as it avoided the problems discussed above since the collieries could use their own wagons to shuttle the stuff straight down to the staithes. Some of this traffic was uninterrupted but the network of tracks was so dense in some areas that running rights were required over railway company track.

 

The colliery brake vans were no conceit, but a requirement by the railway company, who insisted they be hung on the back of trains when exercising those running rights. Colliery stock exercising those running rights also had to be regularly inspected by the railway company to ensure that they were fit for it. South of the Tyne post war there was a very distinctive chain like symbol painted on the side of wagons - the first link contained the initials of the area and as I recall the third had the inspection date, but I don't remember what "linked" the two. Mark?

What I was trying to say seemed a little odd was not that the N.E.R. granted running rights to such railways - but that they actively discouraged the use of any OTHER P.O. wagons on their metals ! 

[Wickham Green]

They weren't just filthy, but many had replacement planks fitted, some just one & others with several replaced. These were not painted at all and in many cases made the original owners name, difficult/impossible to determine.

....... replacement planks*, replacement doors*, replacement solebars, replacement headstocks - mis-matched wheels, mis-matched axleboxes ........................ 

 

* sometimes with traces of another owner's livery

[Caledonian]

What I was trying to say seemed a little odd was not that the N.E.R. granted running rights to such railways - but that they actively discouraged the use of any OTHER P.O. wagons on their metals ! 

 

Matter of control I expect, I doubt they were much bothered about stuff passing through but it will have helped avoid their yards getting cluttered up with foreign vehicles, while conversely as I said it also meant that the collieries had full control over their own stock which didn't disappear to far flung bits of the empire for indeterminate periods

[doilum]

Coal was by far the biggest part of their revenue. Vested interest? I think Peter Tatlow explains it in his first book on LNER wagons.

[jamie92208]

Just as a matter of interest, most of the coal for the fleet conveyed b the so called Jellicoe Specials was I believe shipped to Scapa via Leith docks.  This would solve a lot of problems as most of the ship were anchored out in the Flow and were coaled from Colliers that tied up alongside them.   The colliers could also get to the other ports such as Rosyth and Invergordon as well.

 

Jamie

[jim.snowdon]

Just as a matter of interest, most of the coal for the fleet conveyed b the so called Jellicoe Specials was I believe shipped to Scapa via Leith docks.  This would solve a lot of problems as most of the ship were anchored out in the Flow and were coaled from Colliers that tied up alongside them.   The colliers could also get to the other ports such as Rosyth and Invergordon as well.

 

Jamie

I believe there were also a significant number of coal specials routed over the Highland main line, presumably to Invergordon.

 

jim

[Gary H]

What were the rules on the length of unfitted trains? This also obviously depended on what traction was on the front, but what were the basic prerequisites?

I know you could have a partially fitted head and then have the rest of your train unfitted but I cannot remember the numbers of wagons allowed.

 

I must say, thanks, fella's for all your input, its been very enlightening and an interesting read on a subject I knew very little about!

[Siberian Snooper]

I don't think there was a hard and fast ruling, each loco had a given maximum loading, dependant on the route. The usual sticking point was the length of refuges and loops that determined the length of a goods train, on any particular route. Trains heavier than permitted for a particular loco would be banked uphill, as long as said train could be refuged to allow faster trains too pass.

[Wickham Green]

I don't think there was a hard and fast ruling, each loco had a given maximum loading, dependant on the route. The usual sticking point was the length of refuges and loops that determined the length of a goods train, on any particular route. Trains heavier than permitted for a particular loco would be banked uphill, as long as said train could be refuged to allow faster trains too pass.

The other potential problem with a long train - particularly with the preponderance of unregulated Private Owner wagons in the early days - was the possibility of a coupling breaking.

[Poggy1165]

A factor in allowing PO wagons was that it saved the railway companies the capital cost of providing wagons for this traffic. Of course there were downsides, and in some ways PO wagons were a b--- nuisance, but think of the capital that would have been needed to get shut of them all. I believe the GW had no coal wagons of its own at all, though it did lease a few at various times. The GC certainly had coal wagons - although even many of these were rented rather than owned outright - but the great bulk of its very extensive coal trade was done in PO wagons.

 

The NER was a special case. For one thing it was very rich, and for another it had a near monopoly of its territory. It could afford to be different.

 

BTW the practice of allowing private engines to run over the main line was far from unknown on the GC. At one time they allowed Denaby Main to work coal from the colliery to Hexthorpe, the sole concession to propriety being that each train had to have a GC brake van. (And presumably guard.) This was not the only such example.

[Norton961]

Not quite true that the GWR did not have coal wagons, they did have a fleet of dedicated Loco Coal wagons. The LNWR and LMS also had dedicated Loco Coal wagons. One of my interests is the Lilleshall Company who had coal mines in Shropshire and they had a contract to supply locomotive coal to the LNWR, GWR and Cambrian Railways and the companies would use the dedicated Loco coal wagons.

 

David

[doilum]

It would be very rare for coal wagons to find a return load. Most/all had clear return instructions painted on the side. presumably the colliery or merchant would be charged for this empty trip. A win win for the railway.

[doilum]

Have just stumbled upon a U Tube clip.

Try Google for "coal and the war" a Pathe film.

Note mixture of PO wagons

[Caledonian]

It would be very rare for coal wagons to find a return load. Most/all had clear return instructions painted on the side. presumably the colliery or merchant would be charged for this empty trip. A win win for the railway.

 

I think the issue here is that leaving aside the question of muck a colliery wagon is shuffling back and forth from the colliery - or the coal factor. On the return journey it can only carry something of interest to the colliery. Where it is very practical is a working which takes coal to the docks and carries imported pit props on the return trip.

 

Empties aren't a problem of course on the private colliery lines because the trips to the staithes and back are so short.

[jamie92208]

I think the issue here is that leaving aside the question of muck a colliery wagon is shuffling back and forth from the colliery - or the coal factor. On the return journey it can only carry something of interest to the colliery. Where it is very practical is a working which takes coal to the docks and carries imported pit props on the return trip.

 

Empties aren't a problem of course on the private colliery lines because the trips to the staithes and back are so short.

 

The other example is the one that I quoted above of limestone wagons which took stone to steel producers and coal back but that would only be in areas where the right industries were in the right places.  The Limestone quarries of the Yorkshire Dales supplied he Sheffield steel industry and it was only a short empty tri to get the empty wagon to a colliery for the return trip. However these wagons were owned by the quarry companies.  The colliery owned wagons also supplied the local coal merchants.

 

Jamie

[TheGunslinger]

What were the rules on the length of unfitted trains? This also obviously depended on what traction was on the front, but what were the basic prerequisites?

I know you could have a partially fitted head and then have the rest of your train unfitted but I cannot remember the numbers of wagons allowed.

 

I must say, thanks, fella's for all your input, its been very enlightening and an interesting read on a subject I knew very little about!

  

I don't think there was a hard and fast ruling, each loco had a given maximum loading, dependant on the route. The usual sticking point was the length of refuges and loops that determined the length of a goods train, on any particular route. Trains heavier than permitted for a particular loco would be banked uphill, as long as said train could be refuged to allow faster trains too pass.

The rules were more in regard to speed limits and proportions of fitted and unfitted stock. If you had a few unfitted wagons tacked on the end of a vacuum fitted train you could still run at higher freight speeds, and you could have a few more if you had a brake wagon, but they tended to play it safe with trains and just consider the whole train as unfitted. Each railway had their own specific rules.

[Guy Rixon]

  

The rules were more in regard to speed limits and proportions of fitted and unfitted stock. If you had a few unfitted wagons tacked on the end of a vacuum fitted train you could still run at higher freight speeds, and you could have a few more if you had a brake wagon, but they tended to play it safe with trains and just consider the whole train as unfitted. Each railway had their own specific rules.

 

Up to (roughly) the end of steam, all freights needed a brake van to carry the guard. This applied even if all the wagons were fitted and only changed when it was permitted for the guard to ride in the rear cab of a diesel or electric loco. Logically, if all wagons are fitted, the brake van doesn't have to be at the back, but I can't remember seeing brakes in the middle of fitted trains, except trains of NPCS.

 

Any freight with unfitted wagons at the tail needs a brake van with a guard on board to guard against break-aways. That rule would apply today if any unfitted wagons were in service, and presumably applies to freight demonstrator trains on preserved railways.

[jim.snowdon]

The load a locomotive could take over a given section of line is determined not just by what it can haul up the hills but what it can stop when going down the other side. Even then, that frequently required the train to be stopped before descending particularly steep gradients so that the wagon brakes can be applied in order to increase the drag of the train.

 

As far as fully fitted trains are concerned, the rules in regard to the brake van were relaxed by, I believe the LNER, some time in the 1930s. The van could be coupled inside the train, but with a limitation on the number of vehicles behind the van. What mattered was that if a coupling parted both halves of the train stopped automatically and that the last vehicle carried a tail lamp.

 

Jim

[Caledonian]

But so far as the OP goes, while it was perfectly acceptable to marshal a couple of coal wagons within a mixed freight, coal trains were never run at speed but rather plodded along carefully

[kevinlms]

The load a locomotive could take over a given section of line is determined not just by what it can haul up the hills but what it can stop when going down the other side. Even then, that frequently required the train to be stopped before descending particularly steep gradients so that the wagon brakes can be applied in order to increase the drag of the train.

 

As far as fully fitted trains are concerned, the rules in regard to the brake van were relaxed by, I believe the LNER, some time in the 1930s. The van could be coupled inside the train, but with a limitation on the number of vehicles behind the van. What mattered was that if a coupling parted both halves of the train stopped automatically and that the last vehicle carried a tail lamp.

 

Jim

I recall reading that Lickey Incline, was harder to work freight trains downhill than uphill. Going up, they stopped for bankers and set off, once the line was clear. The bankers just dropped off at the top and returned back down.

Going down, required trains to pull into a loop, have a percentage of the handbrakes pinned down. The train would set off, pulling the wagons to get started. They went slowly down the hill and off into another loop at the bottom, where the brakes were manually released, before the train could continue. Lots of double handling.

[jamie92208]

But so far as the OP goes, while it was perfectly acceptable to marshal a couple of coal wagons within a mixed freight, coal trains were never run at speed but rather plodded along carefully

 

I've just read in a book that the average speed of the Midland's long unfitted coal trains from Toton to Brent was 17mph.  The Garratts were apparently specified to be able to maintain that speed.

 

Jamie

[Gary H]

I've just read in a book that the average speed of the Midland's long unfitted coal trains from Toton to Brent was 17mph.  The Garratts were apparently specified to be able to maintain that speed.

 

Jamie

Brent in Devon?

[Fat Controller]

Brent in Devon?

North London

[wagonman]

Not quite true that the GWR did not have coal wagons, they did have a fleet of dedicated Loco Coal wagons. The LNWR and LMS also had dedicated Loco Coal wagons. One of my interests is the Lilleshall Company who had coal mines in Shropshire and they had a contract to supply locomotive coal to the LNWR, GWR and Cambrian Railways and the companies would use the dedicated Loco coal wagons.

 

David

 

 

Many companies had their own dedicated loco coal wagons – but that is essentially irrelevant as we are talking about traffic coal wagons, of which the LNWR had a number as of course did the Midland.

 

The GWR also hired in wagons at various times some of which were designated for coal traffic though I've no idea what traffic. There were for instance fifty coal wagons hired from the Birmingham RC&WCo in 1903 and allocated to Kingswear – perhaps they handled the Torquay gasworks traffic before Renwick Wilton got the gig (I haven't checked). Most of them were returned off hire in 1921.

 

 

 

Richard

[The Johnster]

What were the rules on the length of unfitted trains? This also obviously depended on what traction was on the front, but what were the basic prerequisites?

I know you could have a partially fitted head and then have the rest of your train unfitted but I cannot remember the numbers of wagons allowed.

 

I must say, thanks, fella's for all your input, its been very enlightening and an interesting read on a subject I knew very little about!

 

The length of a train of any sort, unfitted or otherwise, was specified over a particular route according to the length of refuge sidings and loops that it might have to occupy.  It was measured in 'Basic Wagon Units' (BWU) and, later in BR days 'Standard Length Units' (SLU), fundamentally the same thing.  This was based on the length of a 10' wheelbase goods vehicle; longer wheelbase or bogie wagons being given as 1 and ½ BWU, 2 BWU and so on; the guard added it all up to arrive at the total length, and the information was included on the driver's load slip.  Bogie coaches up to 64' in length counted as 3 BWU.

 

Most British main lines used 60 BWU as a standard, the length that could be accommodated in refuge sidings or loops on a route, including room for brake van and two locos to allow for double heading or assisting locos.  Local instructions in the Sectional Appendix might allow for greater lengths, and several railways ran 100 wagon coal trains to London yards.  The relief roads between Severn Tunnel Junction and Ebbw Junction on the SWML were allowed 90 BWU, and there are no doubt many others of what I wot not of.

 

Part fitted trains were timetabled according to their brake force, measured in tons, something else the guard had to add up and put on the driver's slip, the total determining the class of train for signalling purposes.  If you wanted to run a train at a different class because of lack of brake force, Control had to be informed as it would have an effect on pathing even if the train departs to time, as it will run slower.

 

I could not agree more about the informative contributions to this thread, which is a mine of information!