Pictures of 16t minerals being unloaded.

[Compound2632]

21 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

OK - there'd be a rust patch round every bolt head ( sides and ends of wagon ) or nail head ( floor ), then.  🙃 

 

Yes, indeed, but the point is that the rusty nail heads would be less prominent than the rusty bolt heads.

 

6 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

It's a lot easier to remove a bolt than a rivet!

 

Exactly. wooden wagons were built to be easy to take apart for the speedy replacement of worn or damaged parts, without the need for much in the way of specialised tools. Thus they can go on more-or-less indefinitely. 

 

The only justifications for building steel mineral wagons are (a) your supply of suitable timber has dried up and (b) you have a steel industry to subsidise. Both these conditions applied in the early nationalisation period.

[Steamport Southport]

43 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes, indeed, but the point is that the rusty nail heads would be less prominent than the rusty bolt heads.

 

 

Exactly. wooden wagons were built to be easy to take apart for the speedy replacement of worn or damaged parts, without the need for much in the way of specialised tools. Thus they can go on more-or-less indefinitely. 

 

The only justifications for building steel mineral wagons are (a) your supply of suitable timber has dried up and (b) you have a steel industry to subsidise. Both these conditions applied in the early nationalisation period.

 

Nah. Wooden wagons were quicker to use as firewood.

 

The 16T Minerals lasted forty years with no complaints. It was only the fact they were too small that saw their rapid demise.

 

The future was MGR Hoppers and large capacity wagons.

 

 

Jason

[figworthy]

On 20/11/2022 at 15:44, Fat Controller said:

Both Goole and Preston used this method, I believe.

 

Goole certainly used a tilting platform, no pictures I'm afraid, but back in the days (probably early 80s) when there was unrestricted access to the docks by boat, I watched several wagons emptied in a collier that way.

 

Adrian

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

The future was MGR Hoppers and large capacity wagons.

 

Which is why the 16 ton wagons were always a dreadful mistake. 

[Wickham Green too]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Yes, indeed, but the point is that the rusty nail heads would be less prominent than the rusty bolt heads. ...

The point is, actually. that there were still plenty of ( rusty ) bolt heads inside a timber-bodied wagon and it was "the inside of a wooden coal wagon" that was being referred to - a couple of pages back - rather than specifically the floor.

 

Anyway ....... the greatest dreadful mistake was the failure of most of the coal industry to follow the north-east's lead and standardise on hopper discharge.

[Reorte]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Which is why the 16 ton wagons were always a dreadful mistake. 

Weren't they more of a non-ideal necessity when so many of the collieries weren't set up to take anything bigger, and were unlikely to become so in at least the short-medium term? Might not have been great from the railway's perspective but it doesn't operate in isolation.

[The Johnster]

Not just the collieries, many of the hoists at the export ports were only able go take 9’ wheelbase wagons as well.  The South Wales Bristol Channel ports were owned by the GWR post-grouping, which put a lot of money into upgrading them in the 1920s (which it saw very little return on as the Great Depression started in 1929), so all had some hoists capable of handling 21tonners; at Cardiff, these were the mobile hoists on the south side of the Queen Alexandra Dock, which handled a lot less export coal than the other docks at the port. 

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, Reorte said:

Weren't they more of a non-ideal necessity when so many of the collieries weren't set up to take anything bigger, and were unlikely to become so in at least the short-medium term? Might not have been great from the railway's perspective but it doesn't operate in isolation.

 

I agree; my remark was partly driven by sentiment. But might it have been more economical to have kept the fleet of wooden 13 ton mineral wagons going until the point at which the coal industry was ready for MGR? (Depends on your interpretation of medium term.)

[Wickham Green too]

.... and how good a crystal ball you think they had !!?! ( not to mention how much dosh the country had available at the time )

[Compound2632]

Just now, Wickham Green too said:

.... and how good a crystal ball you think they had !!?! ( not to mention how much dosh the country had available at the time )

 

No, I'm simply a wooden wagon enthusiast; as I said, sentiment creeping in. But I refer to my earlier post, which I think presents the best argument against my sentiment:

 

18 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The only justifications for building steel mineral wagons are (a) your supply of suitable timber has dried up and (b) you have a steel industry to subsidise. Both these conditions applied in the early nationalisation period.

 

[KeithMacdonald]

Thanks to @montyburns56 who posted this on the Interesting and Inspiring photos from Flickr

 

Quote

Gordon Edgar - Acton Lane Power Station - The wagon tippler in use at CEGB Acton Lane Power Station in November 1975.

 

 

No HiViz jackets or ElfnSafty protective barriers?

[Fat Controller]

18 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Nah. Wooden wagons were quicker to use as firewood.

 

The 16T Minerals lasted forty years with no complaints. It was only the fact they were too small that saw their rapid demise.

 

The future was MGR Hoppers and large capacity wagons.

 

 

Jason

The decline of the 16-tonner was probably due to the loss of much of the domestic coal market, which was accelerated by the 1980s miner's strike.

[Reorte]

17 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

The decline of the 16-tonner was probably due to the loss of much of the domestic coal market, which was accelerated by the 1980s miner's strike.

I'd imagine that the rapid decline of unfitted traffic would've shifted them away pretty soon around then anyway; I assume by that point BR would've been very keen to be shot of them ASAP.

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, Reorte said:

Weren't they more of a non-ideal necessity when so many of the collieries weren't set up to take anything bigger, and were unlikely to become so in at least the short-medium term? Might not have been great from the railway's perspective but it doesn't operate in isolation.

Exactly so.  Even in the 1970s we had to be very careful about the empties sent to some collieries in South Wales because the screens could only accept wagons of a certain, restricted, height.  Most places where wagon turntables were used put a restriction on the length of a wagon's wheelbase so any sort of 'universal' design and to keep that  minimum.  The same of course went for industrial locations using tipplers where again wagon dimensions could/were restricted by the design of the tippler.  

 

The coal distribution system and the plant involved in it was well established by the 1950s and massive change would be necessary to accommodate even hopper wagons for use in some parts of the coal trade or at industrial establishments and doing that needed money - which simply wasn't available.

 

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I agree; my remark was partly driven by sentiment. But might it have been more economical to have kept the fleet of wooden 13 ton mineral wagons going until the point at which the coal industry was ready for MGR? (Depends on your interpretation of medium term.)

The simple answer is 'no'.  When masses of steel bodied wagons were ordered to replace wooden bodied wagons in the 1950s the idea of mgr - and the massive investment it needed - wasn't even a glint in somebody's eye.  Even relatively new power stations opened in the 1940s weren't designed to be fed by hopper wagons. (For example one not too far from where you and I live was fed coal exclusively in 16T wagons unloaded by tippling).

 

Wooden wagons might have been easy to repair but were they as cheap to maintain over their working life as all-steel wagons?  I wonder as numerous wagon repair locations vanished as wooden bodied coal wagons left the scene while the all-steel ones managed comparatively long lives without any body renewal or could if necessary be readily patched with welded in pieces.    and were the skills amnd material needed to repait r wooden wagon bodies still around - maybe the use of plywood instead of planking for van bodies told a story there?  Oh, and steel bodied opens could be far more safely loaded with scrap metal of various sorts than wooden bodied wagons.

Edited November 22, 2022 by The Stationmaster

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

The coal distribution system and the plant involved in it was well established by the 1950s and massive change would be necessary to accommodate even hopper wagons for use in some parts of the coal trade or at industrial establishments and doing that needed money - which simply wasn't available.

 

Coal is an extractive industry, which needs substantial investment in plant to start production.  The plant includes all the winding gear, conveyors, screens etc as well as railway wagons.  Having opened your mine, you extract what you can using that plant until further production becomes uneconomic.  It rarely makes economic sense to replace plant before you've recovered your investment while it's still serviceable but anything that does need to be replaced must be compatible.  Then you close the mine.  The obsolete and fully depreciated equipment in the old pits will largely have suffered such wear and tear that it's due for replacement.  In other words, it's only brand new pits that can justify more modern rolling stock and more efficient methods.

 

At that point with luck exploration and developments in technology will enable you to start a new more efficient mine with new designs elsewhere in the coalfield which will be economic in terms of its reserves, current and forecast market prices and using whatever new equipment is now start of the art.  But if new reserves, ease of extraction and demand just aren't there, everybody gets laid off and equipment gets scrapped.  Worked out coalfields, clean air acts, a militant workforce and a political desire for revenge for past disputes don't combine to see survival of an industry and what had been a way of life for generations of workers.  What had been viable when coal and railways were nationalised had long ceased to thrive and few new pits were opened.

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The coal distribution system and the plant involved in it was well established by the 1950s

 

UK coal production by year  - note steep increase in production continuing after 1900, just in the period when most railways were failing to increase the average size of coal tub in most areas and building expensive unloading equipment at the ports.  I think there was a missed opportunity in the early years of the 20th Century to modernise the plant being installed at new pits.

 

The historical blurb associated with the new Accurascale 20t hoppers suggests that the NER had some success in increasing the size of wagons on lines where it could largely bar PO wagons - i.e. in the North East - but traffic from the South Yorkshire pits remained in small PO wagons.  My guess is that the extreme competition for traffic in this region (the most compex in the UK in terms of lines and owning companies imo) hindered railway cooperation to force change.  Perhaps if the companies had been less greedy they might have achieved something?

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

just in the period when most railways were failing to increase the average size of coal tub in most areas

 

Not at all. Tavender, Coal Trade Wagons, compiles data from various sources showing that the proportion of private owner 12 ton wagons rose from 5% in 1907 to 17% in 1918 and 34% in 1928. The Midland, which after the North Eastern provided the largest number of company-owned mineral wagons, moved from its 19th century 8 ton wagons to mineral wagons of 12 tons capacity, built in quantity from 1906, numbering 20,000 vehicles by grouping (6.6% of LMS wagon stock).

[skipepsi]

5 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

The decline of the 16-tonner was probably due to the loss of much of the domestic coal market, which was accelerated by the 1980s miner's strike.

I think it was linked to the'72 and '74 miners strikes and the introduction of natural gas.

[Fat Controller]

4 minutes ago, skipepsi said:

I think it was linked to the'72 and '74 miners strikes and the introduction of natural gas.

The 1980s one put the tin hat on it, as my aunty used to say.

[Cwmtwrch]

38 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

note steep increase in production continuing after 1900, just in the period when most railways were failing to increase the average size of coal tub in most areas and building expensive unloading equipment at the ports.

Thanks for the link - interesting...

 

On size of coal wagons, the GWR built its first 20T Loco Coal wagon in 1898 and its first 40T LC wagon in 1901, followed by more of both in due course, including, in 1924/5, several hundred 20T for hire to larger customers. The NER built 17T and then 20T hoppers. The LMS and LNER built steel 20T LC wagons in the late 1930s, the latter having previously built wooden 20T for the same purpose. The SR built wood 20T coal wagons in the same period. The railways were evidently trying to increase capacity, and well aware of the improved economics [for them as well as their customers] of larger wagons, but the size and material of PO wagons, so long as they met RCH rules, were not something they could control, or even influence much.

[doilum]

Did the use of 20T hoppers require the coal to be broken into smaller pieces. Pre war, a significant amount of large lump coal was being delivered. Were the NE hoppers able to discharge this?

[Wickham Green too]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

... relatively new power stations opened in the 1940s weren't designed to be fed by hopper wagons. ...

 

... all-steel ones managed comparatively long lives without any body renewal ...

The LMS managed to build their Stonebridge Park power station for hopper supply as early as 1929 ..... that SHOULD have set a precedent for others to follow - but obviously didn't.

 

Many, many steel-bodied mineral wagons got so rotten they had to be completely re-bodied ..... easily spotted by the curved bottom corner.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Wasn't it quite a close call between a design of bogie coal hopper and the 4-wheel HAAs we eventually got on MGRs? Something to do with unloading angles on the inside of wagons, tipping it in favour of the HAA.

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, Cwmtwrch said:

but the size and material of PO wagons, so long as they met RCH rules, were not something they could control, or even influence much.

 

The RCH was not an organisation independent of the railway companies; the 1887 RCH regulations were the result of deliberations in the RCH Wagon Superintendents' Committee, chaired by T.G. Clayton of the Midland; I presume that committee or something similar continued to be responsible for later versions of the specifictions. So the railway companies did set the rules; they could have tried to insist that new construction was exclusively of high capacity steel wagons but there would have been very considerable resistance from the owners and wagon building trade, including legal action, if their response to the 1887 regulations is any guide.

[The Stationmaster]

42 minutes ago, Cwmtwrch said:

Thanks for the link - interesting...

 

On size of coal wagons, the GWR built its first 20T Loco Coal wagon in 1898 and its first 40T LC wagon in 1901, followed by more of both in due course, including, in 1924/5, several hundred 20T for hire to larger customers. The NER built 17T and then 20T hoppers. The LMS and LNER built steel 20T LC wagons in the late 1930s, the latter having previously built wooden 20T for the same purpose. The SR built wood 20T coal wagons in the same period. The railways were evidently trying to increase capacity, and well aware of the improved economics [for them as well as their customers] of larger wagons, but the size and material of PO wagons, so long as they met RCH rules, were not something they could control, or even influence much.

The reason for the moves - various - to larger wagons by certain Railways was quite simple - it improved their operating efficiency.  That was why the NER was early in teh field within 20 ton wagons  - it was a company which looked very carefully at its costs and also had the ability to force change due to its near monopoly.  The GWR took a similar stance with the 'Felix Pole 20 tonners' and was able to push its customers and some coal factors into more economic methods using the larger wagon.

 

Bigger wagons reduced I operating costs and required fewer trains to move the same tonnage of coal a compared with using 12 ton wagons and train mileage was very much what it was about.