Mineral wagon brakes

[jim.snowdon]

Normal, if not universal, practice with PO coal wagons was for them to be equipped with independent brakes on either side. Yet, the RCH drawings show a wagon equipped with Morton brakes, with a note that independent brakes may be fitted as an alternative. The common explanation from modellers was that the bottom doors would foul the cross-shaft of the Morton brake, yet drawing out the relevant parts of a wagon using the RCH drawings show this not to be the case.

 

Brake shaft.pdf

 

You would think that the Morton brake would be a little cheaper, as it requires fewer parts, and thus more attractive on cost grounds. They don't even appear on the 16T steel mineral wagons until after BR started building them without bottom doors.

 

Can anyone venture an opinion as to why Morton brakes appear to have never been used on these coal wagons?

[magmouse]

I assume that, although the bottom doors can open with the cross shaft in place, you wouldn't want to dump several tons of coal onto the brake mechanism on a routine basis.

 

Nick.

[Aire Head]

The crossshaft would be more susceptible to damage and therefore more expensive to maintain/operate the wagon than an independently braked example.

[jim.snowdon]

True, but it is a piece of 2 1/2" diameter steel bar, and it is reasonable to expect that the engineers of the RCH wagons committee had thought of that when including the option in the standard designs. The drawings do not include any cautions as to not using Morton brakes on wagons with bottom doors.

[JimC]

Wasn't there a patent fee to pay on the Morton clutch? I had a vague memory that was why the GWR built wagons with a slotted link clutch instead. Also there were all the wagons built with single side brakes and then a second set added. But I share the general opinion that cross shafts and bottom doors wouldn't mix. Not just the shaft itself but also the general deterioration of the rest of the mechanism and fastenings from having all the tons of mineral hammering on the shaft. And wouldn't there be a possibility of large lumps of coal snagging on the shaft? An inconvenient and even dangerous task to clear that. 

[Mark Saunders]

It was explained to me that some rch drawings were more this is what you can have rather than what was actually built! Mix and match the fittings and parts you require to suit your needs and what the builder was offering!

[Hal Nail]

7 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

The common explanation from modellers was that the bottom doors would foul the cross-shaft of the Morton brake

I've never actually heard anyone say the doors would foul the cross shaft - merely that you don't want a cross shaft in the way if there are bottom doors, which is subtly different.

[magmouse]

@jim.snowdon - which RCH specifications were you looking at, when you commented about the Morton brakes? Although I haven't examined the specs in detail, as I understand it they became progressively more specific through the 1887, 1903/04/07 and 1923 specifications, the 1887 being fairly 'broad brush' in terms of what was allowed.

 

Nick.

[magmouse]

11 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

True, but it is a piece of 2 1/2" diameter steel bar, and it is reasonable to expect that the engineers of the RCH wagons committee had thought of that when including the option in the standard designs. The drawings do not include any cautions as to not using Morton brakes on wagons with bottom doors.

 

Curious that there is not mention of not using Morton with bottom doors, but perhaps it was a case of 'assumed general knowledge'. Looking again at your drawing and the 1906 RCH drawing in AJ Watt's Ince wagons book, it's clear that the coal is going to drop onto the brake mechanism (push rods, tumbler, cross-shaft) whether it is a Morton system or independent either-side. So there must be a different answer as to why the Morton clutch was not widely adopted on PO coal wagons - possibly the cost of the patent licence? The modellers' 'folk lore' you identified in your first post is probably just that.

 

Nick.

[petethemole]

From my opening post on the "Wooden bodied mineral wagons" thread:

 

http://railphotoprints.zenfolio.com/p210252395/h754CB76#ha081543

 

"P344560, a steel underframe RCH 1923 type with open spoke wheels. The metalwork is painted grey but the planks are a mix of weathered wood, remnants of a PO livery with the lettering almost worn off, and black patches, probably applied during WW2 for the small lettering of the period, subsequently painted over by BR. It has markings for bottom doors but has Morton brakes with a cross-shaft, theoretically a no-no."

 

[jim.snowdon]

30 minutes ago, magmouse said:

@jim.snowdon - which RCH specifications were you looking at, when you commented about the Morton brakes? Although I haven't examined the specs in detail, as I understand it they became progressively more specific through the 1887, 1903/04/07 and 1923 specifications, the 1887 being fairly 'broad brush' in terms of what was allowed.

 

Nick.

I'm using the 1923 spec drawings. As regards the Morton patent on the reversing clutch, that dated to 1902, and as the life of a British patent is normally 21 years, would have expired, rather neatly, in 1923.

 

I too suspect modeller's folklore, but I was curious as to why that form of brake never seemed to have been adopted.

[jim.snowdon]

2 minutes ago, petethemole said:

From my opening post on the "Wooden bodied mineral wagons" thread:

 

http://railphotoprints.zenfolio.com/p210252395/h754CB76#ha081543

 

"P344560, a steel underframe RCH 1923 type with open spoke wheels. The metalwork is painted grey but the planks are a mix of weathered wood, remnants of a PO livery with the lettering almost worn off, and black patches, probably applied during WW2 for the small lettering of the period, subsequently painted over by BR. It has markings for bottom doors but has Morton brakes with a cross-shaft, theoretically a no-no."

 

Now that is interesting, as it is indeed an example of a bottom doored wagon (that is confirmed by the presence of the monkey tail release catch to the left of the V hanger) with Morton brakes. That's the first time I have seen one.

 

[jim.snowdon]

6 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

It was explained to me that some rch drawings were more this is what you can have rather than what was actually built! Mix and match the fittings and parts you require to suit your needs and what the builder was offering!

That is true. They never specified what you must build, only that if you build to this design you will not have to seek specific approval from the RCH wagons committee in order to get it accepted for registration.

[jim.snowdon]

6 hours ago, JimC said:

Wasn't there a patent fee to pay on the Morton clutch? I had a vague memory that was why the GWR built wagons with a slotted link clutch instead. Also there were all the wagons built with single side brakes and then a second set added. But I share the general opinion that cross shafts and bottom doors wouldn't mix. Not just the shaft itself but also the general deterioration of the rest of the mechanism and fastenings from having all the tons of mineral hammering on the shaft. And wouldn't there be a possibility of large lumps of coal snagging on the shaft? An inconvenient and even dangerous task to clear that. 

Morton's 1902 patent would have expired in 1923, and I would agree that it would have exposed the brake gear to a modest deluge of coal descending from about two feet. Given that these wagons were not hoppers, and that the doors were only 3' 6" by 1' 10", I doubt that they were actually that much use for larger coal, as it wouldn't flow well. Most of the coal still had to be shovelled out anyway.

[magmouse]

11 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

As regards the Morton patent on the reversing clutch, that dated to 1902, and as the life of a British patent is normally 21 years, would have expired, rather neatly, in 1923.

 

For info, according to Peter Tatlow, as quoted in the following link, there were earlier related patents by Morton, in 1885 and 1898:

 

 

Given the patent expiry in 1923, it is indeed curious the Morton system wasn't more widely adopted on PO wagons after that date, when it was quite widely taken up by the railway companies themselves. Paging @Compound2632 for comment...

 

Nick.

[Compound2632]

7 hours ago, magmouse said:

Given the patent expiry in 1923, it is indeed curious the Morton system wasn't more widely adopted on PO wagons after that date, when it was quite widely taken up by the railway companies themselves. Paging @Compound2632 for comment...

 

Bottom doors and a brake cross-shaft aren't a good combination.

[jim.snowdon]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Bottom doors and a brake cross-shaft aren't a good combination.

Yet, through the efforts of petethemole (for which, thank you) not one but two examples of Morton braked bottom door fitted wagons have turned up. I'm not totally convinced by the argument that the brake gear is in the way of the descending coal. It isn't that delicate.

[Buhar]

6 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

It isn't that delicate

Perhaps not, but if you were ordering wagons it might well seem a risk not worth taking as either side brakes remained within the regs.

 

Alan

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

Yet, through the efforts of petethemole (for which, thank you) not one but two examples of Morton braked bottom door fitted wagons have turned up. I'm not totally convinced by the argument that the brake gear is in the way of the descending coal. It isn't that delicate.

 

Well, yes, of course there are always going to be exceptions, but they remain exceptional.

 

Equally there were plenty of mineral wagons around that didn't have bottom doors but had independent eitherside brakes rather than any variation of the Morton brake.

 

As an illustration of the general principle in action, here's Midland Railway Traffic Committee minute 33750 of 19 January 1905:

 

Wagon brakes.

                              The General Manager recommended that, instead of the Company’s goods & coal wagons being fitted with a brake having a lever on one side of the vehicle only, in future the ordinary goods & coal wagons be fitted with the “Morton” brake, (which has a lever on each side by means of either of which the brake can be applied, but can only be released from the side on which it is put on,) and that coal wagons with bottom doors be fitted with the present type of brake on each side, instead of one side only; the work to be carried out gradually.

                              Approved, and the matter was referred to the Carriage and Wagon Committee.

 

Initially, the Midland used the simple version of the Morton clutch on both sides, so both levers were at the same end of the wagon, but from 1907 switched to the more familiar arrangement with the reversing cam on one side - the no-brake-block side; this pre-empted the 1911 BoT rule that the lever should always be at the right hand end of the wagon, from the point of view of someone looking at it side on.

[Wheatley]

10 hours ago, magmouse said:

Given the patent expiry in 1923, it is indeed curious the Morton system wasn't more widely adopted on PO wagons after that date, when it was quite widely taken up by the railway companies themselves. Paging @Compound2632 for comment...

Supposition i know but those PO companies which maintained their own wagons would have needed to keep spares for both brake types. Not a massive consideration perhaps but if you don't need to stock both types ...

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Well, yes, of course there are always going to be exceptions, but they remain exceptional.

 

Equally there were plenty of mineral wagons around that didn't have bottom doors but had independent eitherside brakes rather than any variation of the Morton brake.

 

As an illustration of the general principle in action, here's Midland Railway Traffic Committee minute 33750 of 19 January 1905:

 

Wagon brakes.

                              The General Manager recommended that, instead of the Company’s goods & coal wagons being fitted with a brake having a lever on one side of the vehicle only, in future the ordinary goods & coal wagons be fitted with the “Morton” brake, (which has a lever on each side by means of either of which the brake can be applied, but can only be released from the side on which it is put on,) and that coal wagons with bottom doors be fitted with the present type of brake on each side, instead of one side only; the work to be carried out gradually.

                              Approved, and the matter was referred to the Carriage and Wagon Committee.

 

Initially, the Midland used the simple version of the Morton clutch on both sides, so both levers were at the same end of the wagon, but from 1907 switched to the more familiar arrangement with the reversing cam on one side - the no-brake-block side; this pre-empted the 1911 BoT rule that the lever should always be at the right hand end of the wagon, from the point of view of someone looking at it side on.

Interestingly, I went and looked at the 1907 series RCH drawings, and they too provide for the use of the Morton brake (albeit titled as 'Alternative hand brake' - no mention of Morton), and as with the 1923 drawings, no suggestion that it should not be used with bottom doors. You would think that if there was a real issue with damage to the brake gear they would have put a note on the drawings. It was not in their professional interests to advocate a brake that could easily sustain damage.

[Compound2632]

7 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Interestingly, I went and looked at the 1907 series RCH drawings, and they too provide for the use of the Morton brake (albeit titled as 'Alternative hand brake' - no mention of Morton), and as with the 1923 drawings, no suggestion that it should not be used with bottom doors. You would think that if there was a real issue with damage to the brake gear they would have put a note on the drawings. It was not in their professional interests to advocate a brake that could easily sustain damage.

 

But, equally, bottom doors were optional. It would be up to the builder to choose a combination that would work in practice. Did you also consult the Specification, to which the drawings are an annex?

 

And in practice, as we know, the independent eitherside brake was used on the vast majority of PO and railway company wagons built in conformity with the 1911 Rules.

 

I haven't yet found out where the 1907 etc. RCH drawings were made. The 1887 RCH drawings were made under T.G. Clayton's direction at Derby with the exception of those for iron/steel underframes, for which William Dean was responsible, on the grounds, I suppose, that at that time the Great Western of all the major railway companies was the principal user of such. I think if one knew where the 1907 drawings were made, some of the choices made would become more intelligible.

 

Need to look at TNA RAIL 1080/387.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Compound2632

[eastglosmog]

9 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Interestingly, I went and looked at the 1907 series RCH drawings, and they too provide for the use of the Morton brake (albeit titled as 'Alternative hand brake' - no mention of Morton), and as with the 1923 drawings, no suggestion that it should not be used with bottom doors. You would think that if there was a real issue with damage to the brake gear they would have put a note on the drawings. It was not in their professional interests to advocate a brake that could easily sustain damage.

Don't forget that it would also damage the coal!  Breaking down lumps and giving more dust, which the customer would not like.

[Wickham Green too]

Debatable that ........ falling direct onto the ground might cause more damage to the coal than if its descent was slowed by the brake cross shaft ! 🙄

 

... would only affect a small proportion anyway ...

[eastglosmog]

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, coal breakage was a serious issue.  The Tyneside staithes usually had elaborate mechanisms to lower the coal wagons into ship holds to minimise breakage when the bottom doors were opened.  Coal would not normally fall onto unyielding ground, but onto the existing pile of coal that would tend to be a bit more absorbent and also form a slope down which the impacting coal would slide.  Coal hitting coal on the rest of the pile is unavoidable.  Coal hitting a steel bar would be avoidable.

Fine coal dust is difficult to burn in normal grates - the fine coal does not allow air into the fire.  This was the basic cause of the Aisgill disaster in 1913 when the Midland Railway firebox could not cope with small coal and slack.  Until the advent of fluidised bed combustion in power stations, slack coal was of little value and usually ended up on the spoil heap (in the late 20th century, quite a few companies made a decent profit washing this coal out of the spoil and selling it to the CEGB) - the miners usually did not get paid for slack coal.