Interesting rake of wagons needing identification

[Rail-Online]

Hi,

This is part of a neg taken 1962-05-17 at Stapleford and Sandiacre of a Down freight. The nearly uniform rake of wagons are interesting, I don't think they are BR slope sided minerals, but Private Owners not pooled in the war as they have no side doors (and possibly no end doors either) and are therefore bottom discharge or tippers on some kind of circuit working.

 

Do I vaguely remember the CEGB having some like this?  there appears to be no evidence of lettering on them!

 

Cheers tony

[steve1]

Have a trawl through Paul Bartlett's wagon photo archive.

 

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brwagons

 

steve

Edited February 28, 2019 by steve1

[Wickham Green]

Basically the same as BR slope-siders - but privately owned and, as you can see, without side ( or end ? ) doors ....... can't remember who had them and all my sources are at home ! 

[Pandora]

Any connection to the SNCF wagons, they were British built  for use in France post WW2,  returned to Britain when SNCF had recovered 

[eastwestdivide]

Stewarts & Lloyds (Corby)??

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/bscotippler

Edited February 28, 2019 by eastwestdivide

[Mark Saunders]

These are the wartime built Stewart’s and Lloyds 16 ton tippler wagons built by Charles Roberts and they survived till Corby closed. They are the same as the MoT and prewar built ones but had no doors to avoid pooling regulation, the prototype had side doors only but was probably rebuilt without prior to delivery. There are photos in the HMRS collection of it as 100 as the prototype and 9400 the first production.  Produced in 4mm by Bachmann.

 

Mark Saunders 

[Fat Controller]

1 hour ago, Pandora said:

Any connection to the SNCF wagons, they were British built  for use in France post WW2,  returned to Britain when SNCF had recovered 

I think they have come from the same drawing office. Not all the ones built for SNCF were returned; quite a few were modified to ballast hoppers.

[Wickham Green]

16 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

These are the wartime built Stewart’s and Lloyds 16 ton tippler wagons built by Charles Roberts and they survived till Corby closed. They are the same as the MoT and prewar built ones but had no doors to avoid pooling regulation, the prototype had side doors only but was probably rebuilt without prior to delivery. There are photos in the HMRS collection of it as 100 as the prototype and 9400 the first production.  Produced in 4mm by Bachmann.

 

Mark Saunders 

Indeed, a mere seven hundred of the things built 1939/40 : No.9301 was registered by the LMS but the remainder - 9302-10000 were registered by the LNER. Supposedly built for 'home grown' iron ore but would have carried far more than 16T if filled anywhere near the top !

[black and decker boy]

2 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

. Supposedly built for 'home grown' iron ore but would have carried far more than 16T if filled anywhere near the top !

 Our domestic ore wasn’t purified into pellets like you see imported now but was still in as dug Ironstone form. So a low density of iron which was then separated out from the natural earth / stone at the ironworks.

 

clearly still a denser material than coal so could well exceed the 16T payload if filled to the brim as you say

[lmsforever]

Maybe wagons like this were  near Banbury at the ironstone quarries only saw them once but the site looked extensive and busy ,a line went down to a connection just outside the station at Banbury. 

[Mark Saunders]

4 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

Indeed, a mere seven hundred of the things built 1939/40 : No.9301 was registered by the LMS but the remainder - 9302-10000 were registered by the LNER. Supposedly built for 'home grown' iron ore but would have carried far more than 16T if filled anywhere near the top !

 

The registration is the other way the prototype with side doors was LNER registered and the production ones LMS as all the LMS registers exist at either the National Archive at Kew or the NRM at York. They were originally built as a 14 ton design but soon uprated to 16 ton with no modifications!

 

These were built for coal as at the same time there was a fleet of purpose built 20 ton Iron Ore tipples  being built at the same time. When these received TOPS numbers and codes the diagram was issued as PSO but changed to PMO to reflect the actual use or coal.

 

Mark Saunders

[John Tomlinson]

Given that the ore would sit well below the top of the wagon and not be visible from this angle, I wonder if these are loaded and on the way to Stanton ironworks, a mile or two north of here?

 

John.

[Mark Saunders]

2 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Given that the ore would sit well below the top of the wagon and not be visible from this angle, I wonder if these are loaded and on the way to Stanton ironworks, a mile or two north of here?

 

John.

 

No these are coal wagons and were used exclusively by Stewarts & Lloyds, Corby (later BSC).

 

Note that there is an RCH 13 ton mineral in the set!

 

Mark Saunders 

[Mark Saunders]

2 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

Given that the ore would sit well below the top of the wagon and not be visible from this angle, I wonder if these are loaded and on the way to Stanton ironworks, a mile or two north of here?

 

John.

 

No these are coal wagons and were used exclusively by Stewarts & Lloyds, Corby (later BSC).

 

Note that there is an RCH 13 ton mineral in the set!

 

The picture shows the Iron Ore Tipplers which are different to the Coal Tipplers.

 

Mark Saunders 

[The Johnster]

On 01/03/2019 at 13:46, Mark Saunders said:

 

The registration is the other way the prototype with side doors was LNER registered and the production ones LMS as all the LMS registers exist at either the National Archive at Kew or the NRM at York. They were originally built as a 14 ton design but soon uprated to 16 ton with no modifications!

 

These were built for coal as at the same time there was a fleet of purpose built 20 ton Iron Ore tipples  being built at the same time. When these received TOPS numbers and codes the diagram was issued as PSO but changed to PMO to reflect the actual use or coal.

 

Mark Saunders

The 14/16 ton rating was the load carried; the loaded weight of the wagon would be 21tons

[Rail-Online]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The 14/16 ton rating was the load carried; the loaded weight of the wagon would be 21tons

 

Really?? Are you saying these coal wagons would be loaded with 14 or 16T of coal and each wagon would weigh 21Tons?

 

Tony

[62613]

2 hours ago, Rail-Online said:

 

Really?? Are you saying these coal wagons would be loaded with 14 or 16T of coal and each wagon would weigh 21Tons?

 

Tony

Yes! The 16T or whatever, in the left-hand information box, is the maximum loading of the wagon. You add the tare weight, in the right hand information box, to that. How often they were under or overloaded is a moot point. A volume of dry coal weighing 16 tons would weigh more if it rained, for instance.

 

[The Johnster]

Yup.  The system when I worked on the railway in the 70s was that wagon loads for the purposes of estimating the weight of a train were dependent on Heavy, Medium, Light, or Empty condition; the figures for each were given in a yellow stickyback panel bottom left hand corner of the side of the vehicle, in the vicinity of the label. HMLE were given and the weight of the wagon's load was given as H, M, L, or E on the wagon label.

 

A '16ton' steel mineral weighed 5 tons empty, so the gross loaded weight of a Heavy loaded wagon was 21tons per wagon, which carried 16 tons of coal (another day older and deeper in debt).  A 21ton hopper carried a 21 ton load Heavily laden and was thus 28 tons gross.  And mineral wagons were always, without exception in my experience, either empty or Heavy loaded.  

 

So, when the guard made out the load slip for the driver, or checked it for an already prepared train, in the case o, say, a block train 40 x '16ton minerals' the load was 40 x 21tons, 840 tons , + the 20 ton brake van = 860 tons, plus the loco, say 105 tons for a class 37, a total of 965 tons.  The load the loco is allowed to haul over the route is determined by the 'ruling gradient', the steepest it will encounter on it's journey, up or downhill as the braking power has to be capable of stopping the train in the requisite distance on a downhill gradient as much as the loco has to be powerful enough to drag it up an uphill gradient within the required timing specified in the timetable.  

 

The '16tons' or whatever painted on the side of the wagon (which incidentally usually equates to a 'Medium' loading) is to provide guidance relating to the amount of load the wagon or van can carry; so a 16ton rated wagon carries 16 tons of coal; the people that need to know this are not necessarily railway employees but loading workers at coal mines for example, or merchants in yards, who need not concern themselves with loco power or ruling gradients; they just need to know how much the wagon can carry.  The train's driver, OTOH, needs to know how heavy the load on his rear drawhook is, the gross weight of the train.

 

Mineral wagons were weighed empty and loaded on weighbridges to a much finer accuracy, the nearest hundredweight I believe, but this information was used for charging the appropriate freight rate by the railway, and was more to do with invoicing and accounting.

 

Passenger and NPCCS stock is different, in that the weight given on the end of the vehicle (e.g. mk1 BG, 32tons, load 8 tons distributed) already includes the possible load and weight of the passengers).  As such trains are always fully fitted, the driver's load slip is given to him not inclusive of the loco.

[The Johnster]

9 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Yes! The 16T or whatever, in the left-hand information box, is the maximum loading of the wagon. You add the tare weight, in the right hand information box, to that. How often they were under or overloaded is a moot point. A volume of dry coal weighing 16 tons would weigh more if it rained, for instance.

 

In the case of coal in particular, an amount of weight would always be lost in transit as the stuff dried out; it was soaking wet as it came out of the collieries having just come from the washery, and would lose some to blown dust as it dried out, an 'angel's share'.  Losses might be several tons over the length of a heavy train.

 

Another case is that of tank wagons, which have to be either empty or fully loaded as part loads slosh about and are unstable; 'live' loads.  But the HMLE labels gave Medium and Light loadings just the same.

 

This system was a successor to and simplification of the traditional one you describe of adding the wagon's loaded rating painted on the left of the side to the tare on the right to find the gross weight of the loaded wagon; not sure what date the changeover occurred (paging Stationmaster, Stationmaster to the topic, please) but I associated with steam operation.

[Fat Controller]

In my student days, I worked at British Steel Landore during some of the vacations. I've already mentioned that I had to do a daily wagon survey in connection with demurrage charges; another job involved going through a year's worth of wagon labels and weighbridge tickets, to find out how much scrap had been brought in. I very quickly realised that 16-tonners would often have 20t or more of scrap, and the (very occasional) 21-tonner close to 30t. Fortunately, most of these wagons travelled on routes which had no, or very infrequent, passenger services, so any bearing or spring failures would probably have had minimal consequences.

[The Johnster]

8 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

In my student days, I worked at British Steel Landore during some of the vacations. I've already mentioned that I had to do a daily wagon survey in connection with demurrage charges; another job involved going through a year's worth of wagon labels and weighbridge tickets, to find out how much scrap had been brought in. I very quickly realised that 16-tonners would often have 20t or more of scrap, and the (very occasional) 21-tonner close to 30t. Fortunately, most of these wagons travelled on routes which had no, or very infrequent, passenger services, so any bearing or spring failures would probably have had minimal consequences.

They also travelled at pretty low speeds for most of their journeys, which would make such failures even less likely.  But the 'nominal' load used by guards and drivers could differ quite significantly from what was shown on weighbridge tickets, which as it was itself only accurate to the nearest cwt per wagon might mean a few tons difference on a train load.

 

At the other end of the scale was the 90mph Freightliner ISO container traffic, where the weight (and for that matter the exact nature) of whatever was sealed inside the container was taken on trust.  This led to variations in the true weight of trains that were nominally the same load day to day, and it is difficult to assess how far off some of them were beyond measuring loco performance and listening to driver's subjective opinions about how heavy the train 'felt'.  Overloading must have been frequent and sometimes considerable.  

 

I was once asked to search the section between Abergavenny and Pontrilas on a Sunday evening for a Liverpool-Cardiff Freightliner overdue in section on a Sunday evening; we found it stalled and stuck fast about a quarter mile below the summit at Llanvihangel, with attempts to restart having led to it slipping back down the bank, a problem as the train was straddling a catch point.  It was a foul evening, but a class 47 should have been able to cope with the load on the driver's ticket; he reckoned he was about 25% overloaded and I saw no reason to dispute his estimate.  Hereford had dispatched an assisting 37 which was waiting for us when we got to Pontrilas, having picked up the 'liner's hapless, frozen, and soaked guard who'd gone back to protect.  This was with a 120 dmu with a Buffet Car, and the steward had revived him a little with brandy laced coffee!

Edited March 4, 2019 by The Johnster

[jim.snowdon]

8 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

In my student days, I worked at British Steel Landore during some of the vacations. I've already mentioned that I had to do a daily wagon survey in connection with demurrage charges; another job involved going through a year's worth of wagon labels and weighbridge tickets, to find out how much scrap had been brought in. I very quickly realised that 16-tonners would often have 20t or more of scrap, and the (very occasional) 21-tonner close to 30t. Fortunately, most of these wagons travelled on routes which had no, or very infrequent, passenger services, so any bearing or spring failures would probably have had minimal consequences.

Whilst such overloading could hardly be condoned, the conservatism that was inherent in railway engineering, especially in the pre-computer days, probably meant that failure was not imminent, although the risk of axle failure would have been rather higher.

 

Jim