Split versus solid spoke wagon wheels...

[t.s.meese]

Okay RM folk - this one has bugged me for years. So, first what I (think) I know:

1. Solid (three whole) wheels were introduced before WWII and used widely from the beginning of BR (though I understand that some old spoke wheels continued to be used on some new BR wagons). 

2. Early wagons (e.g. pre-group) and POW wagons used split/open spoke wheels.

3. Big 4 used a mix of all three. And I've seen it written that all were common (Perhaps Essery somewhere). However, this is not my observation. Solid spoke are common on GWR, but split spoke seem to be rare. I think this is well known/accepted. But in spite of what I hear/read, when I look in Tatlow and Essery, I find solid (three hole) and split spoke, but little or no evidence for solid spoke (sometimes the photo angle makes the judgement difficult). 

4. I had intended to review my collection of SR group and pre-group books, but find myself writing this having not done it, so I can't be sure there. I think plenty of solid (including Mansell (wooden insert large diameter smooth riding) type - also on MR vans) and also spoke - but I can't remember whether those were split or solid.

 

So - my questions:

1. What was the history of split and solid spoke - why is one preferred over the other, if indeed that is the case?

2. Contrary to my observations, were solid spoke wheels (distinct from open spoke) used widely in regular LMS and LNER traffic (i.e. vans and opens)? 

3. Why did the GWR favour solid spoke over open spoke? (I guess they were better for some reason, and GWR fans will be quick to tell me this ;-) )

 

Thanks in advance,

Tim.

[Wickham Green too]

Split spoke wheels go back to day one of railways / plateways and were a fairly straightforward forging job. Solid spoke wheels had to be cast so required a foundry and a completely different set of skills - as you say Gods Wonderful Railway favoured this form of construction and presumably having loco and carriage works on the same site at Swindon may have influenced this. Disc wheels require metal spinning - again a totally different technology .... presumably the cost of this reduced in the thirties so new wheels were often made this way - though a LOT of old wheels were re-used under new wagons well into BR days. Initially all three types had separate tyres - but monobloc disc wheels became standard latterly ....... I guess this was post war following the import of American wagons thus fitted - it was a far older technology but I think we Brits were waiting for our metallurgical skill to catch up - and for there to be a ( cost ? ) incentive to change.  

[t.s.meese]

4 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Split spoke wheels go back to day one of railways / plateways and were a fairly straightforward forging job. Solid spoke wheels had to be cast so required a foundry and a completely different set of skills - as you say Gods Wonderful Railway favoured this form of construction and presumably having loco and carriage works on the same site at Swindon may have influenced this. Disc wheels require metal spinning - again a totally different technology .... presumably the cost of this reduced in the thirties so new wheels were often made this way - though a LOT of old wheels were re-used under new wagons well into BR days. Initially all three types had separate tyres - but monobloc disc wheels became standard latterly ....... I guess this was post war following the import of American wagons thus fitted - it was a far older technology but I think we Brits were waiting for our metallurgical skill to catch up - and for there to be a ( cost ? ) incentive to change.  

Okay, so is it that with split spoke wheels you have the rims and spokes as separate parts and fit them together, whereas with solid spokes, they are cast as a single unit?

 

[Wickham Green too]

Split spoke wheels consist of three elements : the spoke units ( consisting of a 'loop' of two 'half spokes' plus section of rim ), the centre boss and a tyre ....... I believe solid spoke wheels were exactly like a loco wheel - namely a single casting incorporating boss, spokes and rim with a tyre shrunk on.

[Compound2632]

Pre-grouping practice varied - the LNWR equipped its wagons with split-spoke wheels pretty well up to grouping, while the Midland and GWR used solid spoke wheels from at least the 1880s. Many of the private wagon building firms use split spoke wheels. Many wagons surviving well into grouping and beyond retained their original wheelsets.

 

I don't know about the LNWR and GWR but the Midland was for many years buying in axles and wheels from outside suppliers - notably the Patent Shaft Co., Wednesbury - and also buying in buffing and bearing springs from various specialist firms.

[Sitham Yard]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

Split spoke wheels consist of three elements : the spoke units ( consisting of a 'loop' of two 'half spokes' plus section of rim ), the centre boss and a tyre ....... I believe solid spoke wheels were exactly like a loco wheel - namely a single casting incorporating boss, spokes and rim with a tyre shrunk on.

My understanding is that until relatively recent times (1980's perhaps) all types of wagon wheel each had a separate tyre that was shrunk on and when that had worn down to a defined limit just the tyre could be replaced. BR used a lot of old wheels including split spoked with new tyres because at times there were steel shortages with 1952, I think, being the worst year for shortages. 

Andrew

[jim.snowdon]

2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Split spoke wheels go back to day one of railways / plateways and were a fairly straightforward forging job. Solid spoke wheels had to be cast so required a foundry and a completely different set of skills - as you say Gods Wonderful Railway favoured this form of construction and presumably having loco and carriage works on the same site at Swindon may have influenced this. Disc wheels require metal spinning - again a totally different technology .... presumably the cost of this reduced in the thirties so new wheels were often made this way - though a LOT of old wheels were re-used under new wagons well into BR days. Initially all three types had separate tyres - but monobloc disc wheels became standard latterly ....... I guess this was post war following the import of American wagons thus fitted - it was a far older technology but I think we Brits were waiting for our metallurgical skill to catch up - and for there to be a ( cost ? ) incentive to change.  

My understanding is that for a long time, split spoke wheels were cheaper than solid spoke wheels, possibly helped by split spoke wheels being forged wrought iron, whereas solid spoke wheels were cast steel. This shows markedly with PO wagons, where solid spoke wheels are virtually non-existent and split spoke wheels were all but ubiquitous, except for a period in the 1930s when some wagons appeared with three-hole wheels. The latter are forged from steel billets using specialised ring rolling techniques, but there were companies in the UK who specialised in this. Steel, Peech & Tozer were one, and the process for manufacturing these are fully described in the film 'Steel Ride', viewable on youtube at -

 

The preference for some railways to use solid spoke wheels may have been down to a preparedness to invest in better quality and/or longer life that the PO wagon industry. Wheel centres and axles can last a very long time, and with periodic tire replacement can be recycled from old wagons to new as they are replaced.

 

The US built wagons imported during WW2 may have been an influence in the adoption of monobloc wheels, but then so would the search for a lighter wheel. The wheelset, plus the axleboxes, all constitute unsprung weight and engineers were aware that this was a factor in track deterioration. The US wheels would have been cast iron, with chill hardened rims - cheap and cheerful by European standards, and a standard that persisted for decades (if it isn't still current). The iron is not, obviously, bog standard cast iron as that would be too brittle, but I would expect it to be one of the grades of ductile iron.

 

 

[BR60103]

Could someone explain what would wear out on the centre of a wheel that it would need replacing?

 

[Wickham Green too]

6 hours ago, BR60103 said:

Could someone explain what would wear out on the centre of a wheel that it would need replacing?

The journals .... the ends of the axles where the bearings transfer the weight of the wagon body. ( In the days before roller bearings.)

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, BR60103 said:

Could someone explain what would wear out on the centre of a wheel that it would need replacing?

 

8 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

The journals .... the ends of the axles where the bearings transfer the weight of the wagon body. ( In the days before roller bearings.)

 

But the journals are part of the axle rather than the wheel. The wheel centre would be pressed onto the axle (with considerable force). 

 

The journals bore on brass bearings in the axleboxes; these were "consumable" items, changed regularly as they wore away. I wonder what the typical rate of wear on the hardened steel journal was?

[doilum]

Most of the Hudson type side tipping wagons built in the 1950s for the NCB used split spoke wheels probably recycled from condemned PO wagons. These ran in a two part journal inside of the wheels. The stump of the original worn out end journals was then cut off. Sometimes neatly often not.

 

[doilum]

9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

But the journals are part of the axle rather than the wheel. The wheel centre would be pressed onto the axle (with considerable force). 

 

The journals bore on brass bearings in the axleboxes; these were "consumable" items, changed regularly as they wore away. I wonder what the typical rate of wear on the hardened steel journal was?

During the war this maintainance might have been reduced. The Soham disaster was down to an axlebox that overheated, and started a fire in a wagon full of explosives.

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, doilum said:

During the war this maintainance might have been reduced. The Soham disaster was down to an axlebox that overheated, and started a fire in a wagon full of explosives.

 

Hot boxes were due to inadequate lubrication of the bearings and journals, rather than their condition, usually.

[Wickham Green too]

7 hours ago, BR60103 said:

Could someone explain what would wear out on the centre of a wheel that it would need replacing? 

.... but if you mean "Why didn't wheel centres have an indefinite life ?" the answer lies in metal fatigue. It's probable that the axle or tyre would fail crack testing ( ultrasonic or more primitive ) before a fault was discovered in the wheel centre itself - but this would necessitate replacement of the faulty component and cause wear and tear to the centre 'til it could be used no more.

[Compound2632]

All of which raises the question of the lifetime of a wheel-set? 

[Marshall5]

1 hour ago, doilum said:

During the war this maintainance might have been reduced. The Soham disaster was down to an axlebox that overheated, and started a fire in a wagon full of explosives.

Not according to the official report https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Soham1944.pdf

Whilst not conclusive the balance of probability was that a spark had ignited sulphur residue in/on the floor of the wagon due to the sheet being tucked inside the wagon sides rather than tied over the sides.  The report describes tests made after the event and found that it would be highly unlikely for an overheated 'box to ignite a steel framed wagon.

On the subject of journals it is/was common practice to skim them in a wheel lathe when they became scored.

Ray.

[doilum]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Hot boxes were due to inadequate lubrication of the bearings and journals, rather than their condition, usually.

I saw the lack of maintenance as inadequate lubrication as pooled rolling stock was worked to death.

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, doilum said:

I saw the lack of maintenance as inadequate lubrication as pooled rolling stock was worked to death.

 

I read your comment:

 

5 hours ago, doilum said:

During the war this maintainance might have been reduced. 

 

 

made in response to my comment:

 

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The journals bore on brass bearings in the axleboxes; these were "consumable" items, changed regularly as they wore away. 

 

as meaning that you supposed replacement of worn bearings might have been neglected, which is a different question to that of lubrication.

[Michael Hodgson]

Mansell wheels went out of fashion as track circuits came in, because the wooden centre acted as an insulator and the vehicle did not operate track circuits.  Whilst one could convert them to conducting axles by adding wires running from tyres to axles in much the same way as we now put resistors onto axles for DCC detection, these wires could easily become severed in normal working conditions and it wouldn't be noticed on routine examination.  So they still could not be relied upon to operate TCs in a fail-safe way.

[melmerby]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Mansell wheels went out of fashion as track circuits came in, because the wooden centre acted as an insulator and the vehicle did not operate track circuits.  Whilst one could convert them to conducting axles by adding wires running from tyres to axles in much the same way as we now put resistors onto axles for DCC detection, these wires could easily become severed in normal working conditions and it wouldn't be noticed on routine examination.  So they still could not be relied upon to operate TCs in a fail-safe way.

Mansell wheels did indeed get bonding, according to various pages on the net, by metal strips which I assume would be unlikely to get severed.

Easy enough to include a copper strip when assembling the wheel.

[Steamport Southport]

6 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Mansell wheels went out of fashion as track circuits came in, because the wooden centre acted as an insulator and the vehicle did not operate track circuits.  Whilst one could convert them to conducting axles by adding wires running from tyres to axles in much the same way as we now put resistors onto axles for DCC detection, these wires could easily become severed in normal working conditions and it wouldn't be noticed on routine examination.  So they still could not be relied upon to operate TCs in a fail-safe way.

 

Banned well before then I'm afraid.

 

1920s for wagons, a little later for coaching stock. Something to do with the retarders used in marshalling yards smashing the wheels.

 

These are the things I mean. This footage is later, but they had simpler versions much earlier.

 

 

 

Jason

Edited May 6, 2022 by Steamport Southport
Added video

[doilum]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I read your comment:

 

 

 

made in response to my comment:

 

 

as meaning that you supposed replacement of worn bearings might have been neglected, which is a different question to that of lubrication.

No, (it's been a long day), I meant that routine lubrication might be reduced or missed under the pressure of wartime operations. I could have been clearer!

 

[Compound2632]

51 minutes ago, doilum said:

No, (it's been a long day), I meant that routine lubrication might be reduced or missed under the pressure of wartime operations. I could have been clearer!

 

Quite possibly; but the effect of widespread hot boxes would have been to paralyse vital war effort traffic.

[62613]

Brings up another question; would it have been possible to see wheels of different types under the same wagon, i.e split spoke at one end, and solid spoke at the other?

 

[Sitham Yard]

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

Brings up another question; would it have been possible to see wheels of different types under the same wagon, i.e split spoke at one end, and solid spoke at the other?

 

Certainly. There have been various photos published over the years. From memory probably all BR period. Could also be disc wheel one end.

Andrew