Insulated Container Diagrams

[Evertrainz]

Does anyone have suggestions for books that outline the various container diagrams of the big 4? Which railway had containers most similar to BR's BD, A, FM, etc. containers, was it the LMS?

 

The SR had its own distict shape of container with a flatter roof (opposed to their vans!), and a little shorter in height. The GWR seems to have a conventional slightly more rounded roof profile, while the LNER's containers appear to be shorter in width, but taller (?).

 

If known, what were the differences in build between FM container diagrams 3/200 to 3/205, apart from planked/tongue-groove/plywood sides and ends? Diagram 3/200 is around 3 inches shorter in height but that is the only noticeable difference I find.

 

Did BR ever build containers to other railways' diagrams? The reason I ask is because the linked picture has a container that looks like an LNER insulmeat container, but carries a 'B' suffix to the number. It's a publicity shot so maybe they painted it up as a BR container for namesake. 

 

 

 

Also I find this bulk malt container interesting, not an everyday sight! 

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Evertrainz

[jim.snowdon]

5 hours ago, Evertrainz said:

Did BR ever build containers to other railways' diagrams? The reason I ask is because the linked picture has a container that looks like an LNER insulmeat container, but carries a 'B' suffix to the number. It's a publicity shot so maybe they painted it up as a BR container for namesake. 

Almost certainly. The pre-nationalisation companies all had committed building programmes that BR simply continued out of necessity, both for rolling stock and locomotives. The owners might have changed on January 1, 1948, but the railway had to carry on, so there are many examples of pre-BR stock with BR numbering and lettering.

 

Jim 

[The Johnster]

Indeed.  Pre-existing orders were continued with after Nationalisation, such stock being numbered by BR with the W, E, M. or S prefix in the same way as stock built by the companies.  Some was still being built in the mid 50s.  

 

But I can't imagine that a B prefixed number, indicating a BR designed vehicle (ok, it's a container not a vehicle but let's not split hairs), would be painted on an LNER designed container for photographic purposes.  A new diagram, with a difference from the LNER one but very similar in appearance to it, maybe on the inside where you can't see it, must have been issued and the container built to it.  

[cctransuk]

18 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Indeed.  Pre-existing orders were continued with after Nationalisation, such stock being numbered by BR with the W, E, M. or S prefix in the same way as stock built by the companies.  Some was still being built in the mid 50s.  

 

But I can't imagine that a B prefixed number, indicating a BR designed vehicle (ok, it's a container not a vehicle but let's not split hairs), would be painted on an LNER designed container for photographic purposes.  A new diagram, with a difference from the LNER one but very similar in appearance to it, maybe on the inside where you can't see it, must have been issued and the container built to it.  

 

Definitely an incorrect suffix - it should be 'E'; BR container 625 was a diagram 3/001 'A' container; (A625B).

 

The CONFLAT S has been repainted very much in the former LNER style rather than the (yet to be issued?) new BR style, so I suspect that the painter in question hadn't quite grasped the regional / BR suffix concept!

 

Such faux pas were not uncommon.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited June 29, 2019 by cctransuk

[cctransuk]

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Deleted - duplicate.

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by cctransuk

[The Johnster]

The Conflat also retains the ‘N’ branding denoting that it was to be returned to the LNER, suggesting a very early repaint with the BR running number on what is probably LNER livery, applied during early 1948. 

[hmrspaul]

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Definitely an incorrect suffix - it should be 'E'; BR container 625 was a diagram 3/001 'A' container; (A625B).

 

The CONFLAT S has been repainted very much in the former LNER style rather than the (yet to be issued?) new BR style, so I suspect that the painter in question hadn't quite grasped the regional / BR suffix concept!

John Isherwood.

John

Do we know when the concept of a regional suffix was introduced. Certainly not on inauguration day! I doubt the painter was wrong on that day. I cannot recollect a minute on when this was introduced, only when colours were agreed. I have an official of the LNER 3 door CCT which is numbered B1312 in April 1950 - so no sign that the prefix/suffix idea for coaching stock had gelled by then. https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/lnercctc/e21e41871

 

Paul

[cctransuk]

32 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

John

Do we know when the concept of a regional suffix was introduced. Certainly not on inauguration day! I doubt the painter was wrong on that day. I cannot recollect a minute on when this was introduced, only when colours were agreed. I have an official of the LNER 3 door CCT which is numbered B1312 in April 1950 - so no sign that the prefix/suffix idea for coaching stock had gelled by then. https://PaulBartlett.zenfolio.com/lnercctc/e21e41871

 

Paul

 

Well - probably not; but clearly the intention to use a suffix had been announced. The painter was, strictly, correct - if the container had been built after BR was inaugurated. (Assuming that the suffix was originally intended to indicate the building railway origin). Subsequently, the suffix seems to have indicated the ordering railway origin, and so Lots ordered by the pre-Nat. companies carried the appropriate suffix - in which case this container should have become FM625E.

 

We have something of a conundrum, though. According to Tatlow 4B, the highest numbered LNER-built FM container, (to Diagram 25), was 560; built at Darlington in 1940. The first BR Diagram for FM containers was 3/200, (built at Wolverton), and the number series bears no relationship to FM625B. Tatlow 4B lists LNER-designed wagons built by BR, but not LNER-designed containers built by BR.

 

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am guessing that FM625B was an unrecorded LNER-designed container, (to Diagram 25?), built at Darlington in the very first days of BR.

 

Fascinating!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[hmrspaul]

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

 

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am guessing that FM625B was an unrecorded LNER-designed container, (to Diagram 25?), built at Darlington in the very first days of BR.

 

Fascinating!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

The photo has a plate which suggests it was taken on 5-4-1949 and the order was in 1946.

 

Paul

[cctransuk]

4 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

 

The photo has a plate which suggests it was taken on 5-4-1949 ...

 

Two and a half months before the date of my birth !

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Evertrainz]

So were containers to big four diagrams numbered with a B suffix or with the respective letter? It seems strange that a B was added to the number of an LNER build container that was completed a year before nationalisation.

 

Also found this BDF container, the first of its kind that I am aware of. It started off as a normal Insulmeat container to diagram 3/201. Would it have been painted ice blue or bauxite? Or perhaps yellow?

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Evertrainz

[cctransuk]

10 hours ago, Evertrainz said:

So were containers to big four diagrams numbered with a B suffix or with the respective letter? It seems strange that a B was added to the number of an LNER build container that was completed a year before nationalisation.

 

Also found this BDF container, the first of its kind that I am aware of. It started off as a normal Insulmeat container to diagram 3/201. Would it have been painted ice blue or bauxite? Or perhaps yellow?

 

 

The FM container was built in 1949 - but it was ordered in 1946. I would surmise that construction was delayed due to post-war materials shortages.

 

The BDF container is very interesting - I have not come across this variant before. The livery appears to be the standard crimson or maroon; certainly not yellow as that would require black lettering. FM containers were white with black lettering, with some being repainted into ice blue with black, or occasionally white lettering. It is just possible that the livery is ice blue with white lettering, but I doubt it.

 

Clearly its insulation has qualified it to be used for banana traffic, something that I've also not seen before. The photo must have been taken fairly late in the banana traffic period, as steam-heated vans were originally used to ripen the fruit in transit. I wonder if the former meat hooks in the FM container were used to hang the bunches of bananas.

 

Altogether, a very interesting photo.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[cctransuk]

7 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

The FM container was built in 1949 - but it was ordered in 1946. I would surmise that construction was delayed due to post-war materials shortages.

 

The BDF container is very interesting - I have not come across this variant before. The livery appears to be the standard crimson or maroon; certainly not yellow as that would require black lettering. FM containers were white with black lettering, with some being repainted into ice blue with black, or occasionally white lettering. It is just possible that the livery is ice blue with white lettering, but I doubt it.

 

Clearly its insulation has qualified it to be used for banana traffic, something that I've also not seen before. The photo must have been taken fairly late in the banana traffic period, as steam-heated vans were originally used to ripen the fruit in transit. I wonder if the former meat hooks in the FM container were used to hang the bunches of bananas.

 

Altogether, a very interesting photo.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

The plot thickens -

 

From the same source, another similar FM container marked for banana traffic, and a very similar livery; (dated 03.03.1966 for both photos).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited June 30, 2019 by cctransuk

[HGT1972]

My records show that among the vast fleet of banana vans awaiting the Geest arrivals at Barry Dock there would usually be several FM containers awaiting loading. As a quick snapshot the following were noted towards the end of 1967: FM59547B; FM59628B; FM59688B (twice); FM59745B; FM59764B; FM59818B; FM60259B; FM60272B; FM60305B; FM60401B (twice) and FM60531B. These were all loaded from either Geestport; Geestbay; Geestcape or Geesthaven and the chartered vessel Brunstal

 

I’m not sure about the Fyffes traffic but certainly Geest brought in other fruit to Barry, their main port, alongside the bananas so the FM containers could be carrying something else but mainly they were used for Northern Irish banana traffic (often via Heysham). On average the ships carried up to 200,000 stems of bananas and one delivery included 500 bags of coconuts! Grapefruits and vegetables such as cauliflower were very common too and these were also delivered in the banana vans.

 

Hywel

[Evertrainz]

Containers can be just as fascinating as wagons sometimes... Any pictures of the BR-built 'F' container (3/375)? I think only difference was the lack of meat bars; therefore would it be branded 'INSUL-MEAT' or a more generic 'INSULATED'? It looks like the larger insulated containers were used (almost) exclusively for meat, and the smaller AF and similar were used for fish in the KX-Aberdeen trains. Is there a particular reason for this or is it just because fish are more compact than carcasses? 

 

John, it seems like those containers had to have been repainted/rebranded to their pictured liveries before the ice-blue/flying crate came around in 1964. Maybe BR decided to reserve the white livery for meat and fish only, and containers used for other traffics received the typical maroon. Or was it Crimson? There's the below shot of the Broad Street meat working, the last non-insulated container in the consist is a different shade to the rest, almost Bauxite in color. Since containers weren't wholly British Rail's responsibility maybe they were more lenient with the colors used. I have seen pictures of containers in all sorts of hues, including a shade that looked like GWR Brown with the yellow lettering.

 

[cctransuk]

3 hours ago, Evertrainz said:

Containers can be just as fascinating as wagons sometimes... Any pictures of the BR-built 'F' container (3/375)? I think only difference was the lack of meat bars; therefore would it be branded 'INSUL-MEAT' or a more generic 'INSULATED'? It looks like the larger insulated containers were used (almost) exclusively for meat, and the smaller AF and similar were used for fish in the KX-Aberdeen trains. Is there a particular reason for this or is it just because fish are more compact than carcasses? 

There's the below shot of the Broad Street meat working, the last non-insulated container in the consist is a different shade to the rest, almost Bauxite in color.

 

Maroon, and any remaining crimson containers were gradually repainted into bauxite around the time that the 'boxed' style lettering was introduced. I'd guess that the container to which you refer is an early repaint.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

3 hours ago, Evertrainz said:

 

 

[micklner]

A reopen on this old thread.

 

I have just bought a 4mm??  3d printed LMS Insulated Container with Iceboxes on the Roof version.

On comparing to my other 4mm Containers,  it is noticably higher, than all the other pre war versions I have, the width is the same as the others.   All the other Containers are approx 32mm high  , this one is 36mm high 9' 00" high . Correct to scale or not ??.

A search of the internet all say a standard height of 8' 00" high (32mm) on all the mentions, I have found so far.

 

[markw]

The LMS insulated/ventilated containers with ice boxes were taller than other containers.

Diagram 175    8'  7 1/2"

Diagram 176    8'  10 1/8"

Diagram 177    8'  10 1/8"

 

[micklner]

1 hour ago, markw said:

The LMS insulated/ventilated containers with ice boxes were taller than other containers.

Diagram 175    8'  7 1/2"

Diagram 176    8'  10 1/8"

Diagram 177    8'  10 1/8"

 

Thanks very much for the info.