12ft Wheelbase open goods wagon

[relaxinghobby]

 

12ft wheel base

 

 

An impulse buy at Mansfield Exhibition was this old Parkside Dundas kit for a 12 foot wheel base wagon chassis. I've made it up using Dapol 12mm wagon wheels from their bargain bags The brass wheel bearing could be Romford's or Alan Gibson they all sit in my box of spare wheel parts.

 

 

 

What to do with this?? I found a drawing in North Staffordshire Railways Locomotives and Rolling Stock By R W Rush ( Oakwood Press ) of a 12ft wheel base drop side and round end wagon suitably archaic and pre-group for me.

 

 

[Turin 60]

I look forward to seeing what you come up with for this chassis.

 

John.

[5D_Stoke]

12ft wheel base

 

 I found a drawing in North Staffordshire Railways Locomotives and Rolling Stock By R W Rush ( Oakwood Press ) of a 12ft wheel base drop side and round end wagon suitably archaic and pre-group for me.

 

 

That R W Rush drawing is very suspect I'm afraid. There is no other indication (eg diagram book, Stoke Works drawings, photos) apart from Rush's sketch that these 12ft wheelbase wagons existed...

Sorry!

[relaxinghobby]

Well for better or worse I finished this model and painted it what I imagined is North Staffordshire Railway passenger red. I have one of those HMRS transfer sheets for pre-grouping railways, including the NSR Notty symbol, so on it went. I'm imagining this wagon would be for fish and tacked on the end of a fast train from the docks to the big town for quick sale whilst it is still fresh.

 

 

 

[Edwardian]

Very nice job indeed.  Like the subtle weathering, too.

[Compound2632]

I'm imagining this wagon would be for fish and tacked on the end of a fast train from the docks to the big town for quick sale whilst it is still fresh.

 

Hum... not many fish in the Trent & Mersey Canal?

[Guy Rixon]

Hum... not many fish in the Trent & Mersey Canal?

 

 

Loads, but tricky to get a stern-trawler in there.

 

If it's a wagon to run in passenger trains, doesn't it need vacuum brakes? Or is this pre-1889?

 

PS: the chassis has lift-link brakes. I think the GCR did have some like this on 12' WB.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Guy Rixon

[relaxinghobby]

Excuses department, it's meant to be about 1889-1900 so no vacuum brake as yet,

I think smelly fish trucks were hung off the back of the train away from sensitive

noses, so would they need vacumn brakes?

My working drawing was from the book North Staffordshire Railways Locomotives and

Rolling Stock By R W Rush ( Oakwood Press ), which shows no running or brake gear,

so I utilised this chassis kit as it had the right wheelbase.

[Fat Controller]

Perhaps intended to carry something bulky, such as rolls of silk or bales of wool?

[Guy Rixon]

Excuses department, it's meant to be about 1889-1900 so no vacuum brake as yet,

I think smelly fish trucks were hung off the back of the train away from sensitive

noses, so would they need vacumn brakes?

My working drawing was from the book North Staffordshire Railways Locomotives and

Rolling Stock By R W Rush ( Oakwood Press ), which shows no running or brake gear,

so I utilised this chassis kit as it had the right wheelbase.

 

 

Pre 1889 (1886? can't remember the exact year; 1880s anyway), the formal rules were lax. Sensible companies had continuous breaks on all high-speed trains, but the BoT did not enforce this.

 

Then there was a horrendous accident in Ireland that killed a trainload of Sunday-school children in a run-away on a steep bank.

 

After that,  the BoT strongly required continuous brakes on passenger trains. If there were unbraked vehicles at the back, the train would need a brake vehicle with  a guard manning the handbrake at the very back to deal with breakaways. And possibly a second guard working the train brake in the main portion. And it might well have had a speed restriction in that arrangement. Most companies found it easier to fit vacuum or air brakes to the NPCS.

[Compound2632]

After that,  the BoT strongly required continuous brakes on passenger trains.

 

That is to say, it became a legal requirement. Regulation of Railways Act 1889. The Armagh disaster to which Guy alludes occurred on 12 June of that year; the Act came into force on 30 August.

[Regularity]

My working drawing was from the book North Staffordshire Railways Locomotives andRolling Stock By R W Rush ( Oakwood Press ), which shows no running or brake gear

Be careful with that book as a reference work. Some of the details, and indeed quoted dimensions, are the result of guesswork. As I once found out when trying to build a wagon from one of the drawings...

 

Better bet is the WSP book.

[Guy Rixon]

That is to say, it became a legal requirement. Regulation of Railways Act 1889. The Armagh disaster to which Guy alludes occurred on 12 June of that year; the Act came into force on 30 August.

 

 

Yes, that's the one. Here is the relevant section:

 

"Power to order certain provisions to be made for public safety.

 

(1)The Board of Trade may from time to time order a railway company to do, within a time limited by the order, and subject to any exceptions or modifications allowed by the order, any of the following things:—

 

(a)To adopt the block system on all or any of their railways open for the public conveyance of passengers;

 

(b)To provide for the interlocking of points and signals on or in connexion with all or any of such railways;

 

©To provide for and use on all their trains carrying passengers continuous brakes complying with the following requirements, namely:—

 

(i)The brake must be instantaneous in action, and capable of being applied by the engine-driver and guards;

 

(ii)The brake must be self-applying in the event of any failure in the continuity of its action;

 

(iii)The brake must be capable of being applied to every vehicle of the train, whether carrying passengers or not;

 

(iv)The brake must be in regular use in daily working;

 

(v)The materials of the brake must be of a durable character, and easily maintained and kept in order.

In making any order under this section the Board of Trade shall have regard to the nature and extent of the traffic on the railway, and shall, before making any such order, hear any company or person whom the Board of Trade may consider entitled to be heard."

 

Note that the BoT is not required to enforce the specific clauses on every railway conveying passengers, just to legally empowered to enforce them. Note also clause c.iii that the train brake is supposed to work on the non-passenger-carrying vehicles too. 

[Compound2632]

Yes, that's the one. Here is the relevant section:

 

"Power to order certain provisions to be made for public safety.

 

(1)The Board of Trade may from time to time order a railway company to do, within a time limited by the order, and subject to any exceptions or modifications allowed by the order, any of the following things:—

 

(a)To adopt the block system on all or any of their railways open for the public conveyance of passengers;

 

(b)To provide for the interlocking of points and signals on or in connexion with all or any of such railways;

 

©To provide for and use on all their trains carrying passengers continuous brakes complying with the following requirements, namely:—

 

(i)The brake must be instantaneous in action, and capable of being applied by the engine-driver and guards;

 

(ii)The brake must be self-applying in the event of any failure in the continuity of its action;

 

(iii)The brake must be capable of being applied to every vehicle of the train, whether carrying passengers or not;

 

(iv)The brake must be in regular use in daily working;

 

(v)The materials of the brake must be of a durable character, and easily maintained and kept in order.

In making any order under this section the Board of Trade shall have regard to the nature and extent of the traffic on the railway, and shall, before making any such order, hear any company or person whom the Board of Trade may consider entitled to be heard."

 

Note that the BoT is not required to enforce the specific clauses on every railway conveying passengers, just to legally empowered to enforce them. Note also clause c.iii that the train brake is supposed to work on the non-passenger-carrying vehicles too. 

 

Guy, my apologies, your original statement was correct. The difference made by the act was that if the BoT insisted, the company was obliged to comply (section 2) - the act also gave the railway companies the power to raise the capital required to implement compliance (section 3).

 

Full text: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/enacted.

 

Section 5 seems to be the part of the act most frequently cited in the law courts today.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Compound2632

[relaxinghobby]

Thanks for the reference to the rulebook. What happened in practice at the time? Was there any reference to how much it cost and how long it took. How much resistance from the railway companies to the increased cost of providing all this new safety equipment. How long did the roll out across the country of new brake and signalling take? Where railway companies interested in the PR opportunities of extra safety equipment to attract passengers to use their services, especially if they operated parallel lines to less safe rivals. Also at this time the unions were agitating for reduced hours for railway staff as lack of sleep could also be a factor in safety. Was the national mood for improvement and safety. What was happening abroad on other railways?

 

Not long after this the light railway act allowed for reduced signalling standards if for appropriate little used services, mid 1890's ? So in the evolution of safety standards and the development, manufacture and use of new equipment how long did it take to get into use every where. Were they still hanging unbreaked tail end wagons on the back of the more ramshackle trains on less busy services? What was happening on the third division railway companies, not just the crack express routes of say the LNWR, GNR, Caledonian and Midland Railway?

[Fat Controller]

Twenty years or so after the period you are discussing, non-fitted passenger-carrying stock was still in existence on the Continent. Indeed, they were a major factor in one of the worst railway accidents ever, at St Michel du Maurienne:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne_derailment 

[Compound2632]

What was happening on the third division railway companies, not just the crack express routes of say the LNWR, GNR, Caledonian and Midland Railway?

 

One dreads to think what was going on in remote corners of Great Western territory.

 

(Runs for cover.)

[Fat Controller]

One dreads to think what was going on in remote corners of Great Western territory.

 

(Runs for cover.)

Both the BP&GV and the L&MMR in South-East Carmarthenshire operated (without Board of Trade approval) passenger services using empty coal wagons. The main users were miners' wives going to Llanelly market, or shopping in Burry Port. On being caught out by unannounced visits by the Railway Inspectorate, both lines were obliged to obtain some second-hand coaches; these had vacuum brakes, but no evident heating. The BP&GVR service lasted until just after Nationalisation, but the other became a 'workmen only' service for miners. The stock for the latter was so run-down that, at Grouping, it had to be loaded on bogie bolsters for scrapping at Swindon.

[ChrisN]

The Cambrian, which was never flush with cash, claimed that all its trains, (except two), were fitted by 1894.  The two that were not, I think/assume were mixed trains on the coast route and I think they lasted until 1896.  Early mixed trains had the coaches at the back so these might have been the same.