Shell Class A wagon

[nicktamarensis]

Hello,

This wagon was a Hurst Nelson product registered by the MR in 1918 for Shell.  The tare weight is given as '8.8.2.0'. It is shown with a similar but larger wagon behind it  (No. 4910) which I assume to be a 14ton type making the smaller No. 2794 a 12ton.  Is this assumption correct? 

Although I have the 1980 Tourret book it doesn't give this sort of detail.  Can anyone help please? 

Photo taken at Ashford in 1951.  I also assume that by this date the alternative 'BP' logo was shown on the other side of the tank.  Livery details are given as 'white tank with red lettering and red solebars',

Nick.

[Wickham Green]

I'd say your guess of the loads is about right .......... not sure about 'white' tanks though - more likely silver. 

[Fat Controller]

White was reserved for gas under pressure, from Butane to ammonia. Larkin uses this same photo in 'Non-Pool Freight Stock- Volume 2', noting that both tanks are in the Class A livery of grey or silver tank and red solebar.

[nicktamarensis]

Many thanks gentlemen.

Is there any owner listings (much in the same way as Don Roland gives) of  tanker wagons, their numbering, build date etc, etc?

[Mark Saunders]

13 hours ago, nicktamarensis said:

Many thanks gentlemen.

Is there any owner listings (much in the same way as Don Roland gives) of  tanker wagons, their numbering, build date etc, etc?

 

The closest is the PO registration books held by either the National Archives at Kew or NRM in York, unless someone has published the results of their research!

 

Mark Saunders 

[Gordon A]

Is there a chance that they could be 14 ton and 20 ton tanks?

 

Gordon A

[Fat Controller]

1 hour ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

The closest is the PO registration books held by either the National Archives at Kew or NRM in York, unless someone has published the results of their research!

 

Mark Saunders 

You never know what DL might come up with next.. The two 'non-Pool' books have a lot of stuff on tanks, with photos.

[nicktamarensis]

Thanks again for the extra info.  Any ideas about Gordon A's question about the tonnages?

[Clive Mortimore]

24 minutes ago, nicktamarensis said:

Thanks again for the extra info.  Any ideas about Gordon A's question about the tonnages?

4910 ia a 14 ton RCH 1927 design tank wagon, double brake not Morton 12ft 6in wheelbase bake as would be found on a 20 ton. 2794 is either a 10 or 12 ton 1907 RCH design of tank wagon. A very late built one as in 1911 RCH had issued a drawing for a 14 ton wagon which has the same method of holding the tank in place as the 1907 design but the bigger barrel of the 1927 design. Wagons identified from "Oil on the rails" by Alan Coppin, the RCH drawings are in the appendix.

 

You can make out on 2794 where the barrel has moved a little bit, look at the weathering on the end.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[Dunsignalling]

With that style of lettering, I'd think the tank colour would more likely be buff, like the old Airfix model of the 20-ton wagon.

 

John 

[nicktamarensis]

Many, many thanks Clive.  I thought about getting Alan Coppin's book but instead plumped for the Tourret 1980 edition and then found out I really should have got more recent update AND the Coppin book. 

Would it be possible to PM you on other vintage chemical tank wagons?

Nick.

[hmrspaul]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

With that style of lettering, I'd think the tank colour would more likely be buff, like the old Airfix model of the 20-ton wagon.

 

John 

Officially known as Stone - the alternative to silver permitted post war until the silver paint is available again. This is from BR minutes. Should have  a red solebar.

 

23 hours ago, nicktamarensis said:

Many thanks gentlemen.

Is there any owner listings (much in the same way as Don Roland gives) of  tanker wagons, their numbering, build date etc, etc?

No, unlike non tank non pool privately owned wagons no one has come up with an RCH listing of tank wagons. Just simply doesn't appear to have existed. Dave L would have included it if it did.

And be ware. errors in Dons book. The BR lot records are now at the HMRS study center.

 

Paul Bartlett

 

 

[nicktamarensis]

Hm.  Not knowing what the errors were these would be difficult to avoid.  Has there been any published indication of what the more serious of these were?

[Wickham Green]

16 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

4910 ia a 14 ton RCH 1927 design tank wagon, double brake not Morton 12ft 6in wheelbase bake as would be found on a 20 ton. 2794 is either a 10 or 12 ton 1907 RCH design of tank wagon. A very late built one as in 1911 RCH had issued a drawing for a 14 ton wagon which has the same method of holding the tank in place as the 1907 design but the bigger barrel of the 1927 design. Wagons identified from "Oil on the rails" by Alan Coppin, the RCH drawings are in the appendix.

 

You can make out on 2794 where the barrel has moved a little bit, look at the weathering on the end.

At first sight I thought 4910 was an Air Ministry type - but without the Modeller's Backtrack article in front of me .............

 

As for the tank twisting on 2794 ......... well, it can't have been more heavily loaded on one side than the other !!

[jjnewitt]

16 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

4910 ia a 14 ton RCH 1927 design tank wagon, double brake not Morton 12ft 6in wheelbase bake as would be found on a 20 ton. 2794 is either a 10 or 12 ton 1907 RCH design of tank wagon. A very late built one as in 1911 RCH had issued a drawing for a 14 ton wagon which has the same method of holding the tank in place as the 1907 design but the bigger barrel of the 1927 design. Wagons identified from "Oil on the rails" by Alan Coppin, the RCH drawings are in the appendix.

 

5 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

At first sight I thought 4910 was an Air Ministry type - but without the Modeller's Backtrack article in front of me .............

 

The larger of the two tanks is a 7'2 1/2" diameter Air Ministry, you can tell primarily from the manhole but also the walkways. They were to 1927 spec but were a little bit different to most built in the late 1920s and 1930s. I'm slowly working away at a model of one of those myself. 

 

 

Personally I've become wary of refering to tank wagons by weight as it doesn't really tell us a great deal about the wagon in question and specifically it doesn't automatically tell us the diameter of the tank which is the important thing from a modelling point of view. All it tells us what load you could put on the underframe. This is a bit like 16T minerals. The 16T bit doesn't tell you how much you could get in the box merely the maximum weight you could put on the underframe (16T of coke wouldn't fit, if you filled it with iron ore you'd end up being way overloaded, coal varied in density (just like oil products)...). The load you could get in the tank would vary depending on what type of oil product was being carried and tanks were built at different diameters for different loads. The RCH tank loads list in Mr Tourret's book is a good start but is not exhaustive and there were non standard sizes (a flick through Mr Tourret's book will gve you quoted tank diameters of 6'11" for Class A loads and the 6' 0" diamater of the Air Ministry Class B lubricating oil tanks aren't listed). We do know some things, for example that the Air Ministry Class A tanks were all 7'2 1/2" (from the drawings) hence why I gave that measurement at the start.

 

The other wagon in the picture above is an RCH standard pre-1927 tank. It's likely to be 10/12T underframe as the springs are 5 leaf, if it were 14T it would have 6 leaf springs. The tank is likely to be around 5'11" diameter but it's almost impossible to be completely sure. 

 

Justin

[dvdlcs]

Just out of interest, and probably not adding anything to the topic, were tank wagons like this a single compartment inside or were they divided into two or three compartments to allow for part loads or even mixed loads?

[Wickham Green]

3 hours ago, dvdlcs said:

Just out of interest, and probably not adding anything to the topic, were tank wagons like this a single compartment inside or were they divided into two or three compartments to allow for part loads or even mixed loads?

If here's one manhole - and there usually is - then there's only one compartment ......... but two or even three section tanks weren't unknown : not sure how they ensured a sensible weight distribution !!?!

[nicktamarensis]

Thank you once again gentlemen.  I am most deeply in your debt.  A good slice of the above info will in time appear in 'BRILL' against the various wagons as part of the ongong 'Workaday Wagons' series.   A mention in despatches goes without saying.

Nick.