Petrol/fuel tankers in the 40s/50s/60s

[The Stationmaster]

Yes Clive, I noted your mention of the use of 'stone' earlier. My point was, and still is, about the accuracy of that National Benzole tank modelled by Hornby, Bachmann and it would seem in N by somebody as well. The prototype photo I linked to shows the livery, colour aside, to be largely accurate so the question is; diid three RTR manufacturers get the body colour wrong? Now it is possible that they did, could they have followed an incorrect original resource and then just copied each other, or just picked a yellow out of the air?

 

However, the 'yellow' chosen is nothing like the bright, intense egg yolk yellow National Benzole used on their road fleet, it's a more creamy yellow. So I still ask is it correct, did National Benzole use a yellowish stone colour, have the RTR manufacturers just produced a too yellow version of it?

 

So, in the absence of a good colour photo of the prototype, I wouldn't dismiss it as being wrong too readily.

There is another factor in this as well Arthur.  The colour requirements for tank cars conveying highly inflammable liquids (Class A) were exactly that - they were a stipulated colour scheme ('light stone with a bright red band 6" wide running horizontally round the tank').  From June 1939 the scheme changed - no doubt gradually - to 'aluminium with a bright red band 6" wide running round the ends of the tank.  The red band is stopped short on the sides of the tank to provide space for the name of the owner or commodity'.  Another primary source document indicates that the light stone colouring may still have been in use in 1945 as it refers to 'either aluminium or light stone colour'  (but it is S&DJtR and some things moved slowly there!).

 

What I can't trace from original source documents is when the change was made to red solebars (instead of the 6" wide red band on the tanks) on Class A wagons.

[Black Sheep]

Yes Clive, I noted your mention of the use of 'stone' earlier. My point was, and still is, about the accuracy of that National Benzole tank modelled by Hornby, Bachmann and it would seem in N by somebody as well. The prototype photo I linked to shows the livery, colour aside, to be largely accurate so the question is; diid three RTR manufacturers get the body colour wrong? Now it is possible that they did, could they have followed an incorrect original resource and then just copied each other, or just picked a yellow out of the air?

 

However, the 'yellow' chosen is nothing like the bright, intense egg yolk yellow National Benzole used on their road fleet, it's a more creamy yellow. So I still ask is it correct, did National Benzole use a yellowish stone colour, have the RTR manufacturers just produced a too yellow version of it?

 

So, in the absence of a good colour photo of the prototype, I wouldn't dismiss it as being wrong too readily.

My Minitrix wagons are a yolk yellow from around the time of Hornby involvement.

 

If aiming at the growing 'toy' market of the time then liveries matching road tankers seen from the back seat of Dad's Cortina on the new motorways makes sense, along with shredded wheat and Birdseye wagons.

 

Another N manufacturer has produced a more buff/stone version

[Arthur]

Which is what I was getting at, it's the interpretation of the stone colour by the RTR manufacturers which is in question, some have got it too yellow on an otherwise accurate livery.

 

For example, are these wrong?

 

 

Is that stone, buff, yellow?

 

I don't know, but this use of a yellowish 'Cotswold Stone' colour seems common with the RTR manufacturers.

 

Edit; this, somewhat faded in preservation, at Totnes, perhaps better represents it;

 

Edited June 8, 2015 by Arthur

[petethemole]

I'd call that 'buff'. It's close to the shades shown here http://colors.findthedata.com/l/600/Buff

 

Pete

[bike2steam]

 Another primary source document indicates that the light stone colouring may still have been in use in 1945 as it refers to 'either aluminium or light stone colour'  (but it is S&DJtR and some things moved slowly there!).[/i]

On the S&D ? then it'd probably be referred to as 'Hamstone' - sorry about that , I'll get me coat :-) .

[jwealleans]

If pumping was required they used a portable pump.But gravity was usually enough.

I was going to mention this over the weekend and forgot. My dad recalls at Guisborough in the 1950s that fuel tankers would be shunted to the very end of the siding nearest the road and a road tanker parked right in the corner of the yard, which was quite a bit lower. Gravity was then used to fill the road tanker as required - whether it was taken away to storage or delivered directly to customers I can't say.

[The Stationmaster]

Which is what I was getting at, it's the interpretation of the stone colour by the RTR manufacturers which is in question, some have got it too yellow on an otherwise accurate livery.

 

 

I don't know, but this use of a yellowish 'Cotswold Stone' colour seems common with the RTR manufacturers.

 

Edit; this, somewhat faded in preservation, at Totnes, perhaps better represents it;

 

image.jpg

Somewhat darker (but with some dark weathering) in my September 2009 picture.  The problem of course is how different cameras render the colour plus how it looks on our different monitor screens although the adjacent bauxite painted Vanfit looks much the same colour as yours in my pic.  I always think a potential good guide can be contemporaneous model railway stock as Hornby Dublo tended to give a pretty good representation of wagon colours.

 

[uax6]

Mike, that tank throws up an interesting question. There is diffinatly a red strip on the tank side, but should the headstock at the end be painted red, rather than what appears to be red oxide?

 

Andy G

[The Stationmaster]

Mike, that tank throws up an interesting question. There is diffinatly a red strip on the tank side, but should the headstock at the end be painted red, rather than what appears to be red oxide?

 

Andy G

That's a very good question Andy - which also occurred to me (so that means I can't answer it of course!).   think it was possibly down to interpretation because obviously you couldn't get at the tank body to paint it bright red anyway but equally there would be nothing to stop the band being continued.  I wonder if anyone has the answer although possibly works photos might give a hint?

[Silver Sidelines]

I know 'nowt' about these tank wagons but looking at the pictures I am impressed by the lack of red oxide paint around the supports and end planks on the white paintwork which leads me to suggest that the tank was painted prior to placing on the wagon.  Mind - I have to say that the straining bar seems to have been painted the same shade of red as the stripe on the tank.  Maybe the stripe was a later addition and the bar was repainted in that process?

 

Ray

[Andy Hayter]

I saw the Fawley-Bromfords with both a mix of tanks or a full train of one type. I suspect that the barrier wagons were allocated to the service, as the second wagon in the second photo appears to be an ex SR 8-Plank vac fitted open. This combination also appears in a photo I have seen with the train on the SR headed by a Jubilee.

 

Assuming this was a round trip working - full one way and empties back - it makes perfect sense to have dedicated barrier wagons even when not strictly required.  Even if you did not need one on the outbound working, there would be no guarantee that the first wagon on the empties return would also not need a barrier. 

[bike2steam]

I was always led to believe that 'heavy' oil tank wagons were more inflammable when empty because of the gasses, the barrier wagons stayed with the workings full, and empty.

[coachmann]

For good information on fuel tank wagons, may I refer you to the following titles :-

 

BackTrack Vol. 2 No.4 Winter 1988

BackTrack Vol. 3 No.1 April-May 1993

BackTrack Vol. 3 No.2 June-July 1993

 

I hadn't spotted they were unfitted until this thread.

[SRman]

There is another factor in this as well Arthur.  The colour requirements for tank cars conveying highly inflammable liquids (Class A) were exactly that - they were a stipulated colour scheme ('light stone with a bright red band 6" wide running horizontally round the tank').  From June 1939 the scheme changed - no doubt gradually - to 'aluminium with a bright red band 6" wide running round the ends of the tank.  The red band is stopped short on the sides of the tank to provide space for the name of the owner or commodity'.  Another primary source document indicates that the light stone colouring may still have been in use in 1945 as it refers to 'either aluminium or light stone colour'  (but it is S&DJtR and some things moved slowly there!).

 

What I can't trace from original source documents is when the change was made to red solebars (instead of the 6" wide red band on the tanks) on Class A wagons.

I can't help wondering whether the change to silver/grey may have been delayed because of the war. Silver (or any light colour) would be somewhat more visible from the air, so repainting may have been deemed to be undesireable at the time. I hasten to add that I am only surmising this and have no hard facts to contribute to this suggestion.

[DS239]

I can't help wondering whether the change to silver/grey may have been delayed because of the war. Silver (or any light colour) would be somewhat more visible from the air, so repainting may have been deemed to be undesireable at the time. I hasten to add that I am only surmising this and have no hard facts to contribute to this suggestion.

 

Yes,it is mentioned [by Tourrett, I think] that as soon as war broke out the livery of tank wagons was changed to overall dark grey [so as not to attract the attention of the Luftwaffe],therefore probably only a small number carried the silver livery immediately pre-war.

[KeithHC]

An interesting thread especially as I am in long term planning to build a model of Rowfant. Rowfant had a fuel depot rail served built during WW2. This was used by Class A tanks with a fixed siphoning system. See this picture from Ian Nolans Flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/photos/31890193@N08/9638549936/in/album-72157635302040032/. There is also a picture number 90 in  Middleton press, Southern main lines, East Croydon to Three Bridges of an ex LBSCR K class passing Salfords (my home village) with a block train of 22 tanks. The formation is Loco, Brake van, 2 x 16t mineral, 22 tanks, 2 x 16t mineral and Brake van. The date of the picture is August 1959 and the train is routing from Hoo junction. The depot was used by SMBP and did not go out of use until 1967 and probably served Gatwick airport.

 

Keith 

[Silver Sidelines]

There was a nice little article in the April 1963 Railway Modeller describing how to make Class A Petrol tanks from the Airfix (now Dapol) 2/- kits.  The author confirms the need for two barrier vehicles between the engine - he says in 1963 for both Steam and Diesel.

 

Regards

 

Ray

Edited June 9, 2015 by Silver Sidelines

[Clive Mortimore]

I was always led to believe that 'heavy' oil tank wagons were more inflammable when empty because of the gasses, the barrier wagons stayed with the workings full, and empty.

I am not a chemist or a firefighter but with all petroleum products it is the fumes that catch light not the liquid.

 

Light fuels, petrol, aviation fuel, paraffin etc. have a low flashpoint and will catch fire or explode when in contact with a hot enough object, like a cigarette or a spark from the old man’s hob nail boots.

 

When I was in the army my mate, a very good welder, would weld up Landrover fuel tanks, only if they were full. An empty petrol tank was a bomb waiting to go off as it was full of fumes. With a totally full one the only fumes were leaking from where he was welding so he had control of the fire.

 

Heavy oils tend to have a higher flash point than light oils and do not catch fire readily. You can put your fag out in a tank of diesel without it going bang. How many road fires do you get with the fumes from the bitumen catching fire due to discarded butt ends?

 

Last night I found a photo of the Esso Fawley -Bromford train composed of 35 and 45 ton GLW Class A tanks without any barrier wagons, circa 1966. Two Class 33 on the front.

[Fat Controller]

I am not a chemist or a firefighter but with all petroleum products it is the fumes that catch light not the liquid.

 

Light fuels, petrol, aviation fuel, paraffin etc. have a low flashpoint and will catch fire or explode when in contact with a hot enough object, like a cigarette or a spark from the old man’s hob nail boots.

 

When I was in the army my mate, a very good welder, would weld up Landrover fuel tanks, only if they were full. An empty petrol tank was a bomb waiting to go off as it was full of fumes. With a totally full one the only fumes were leaking from where he was welding so he had control of the fire.

 

Heavy oils tend to have a higher flash point than light oils and do not catch fire readily. You can put your fag out in a tank of diesel without it going bang. How many road fires do you get with the fumes from the bitumen catching fire due to discarded butt ends?

 

Last night I found a photo of the Esso Fawley -Bromford train composed of 35 and 45 ton GLW Class A tanks without any barrier wagons, circa 1966. Two Class 33 on the front.

I remember trying to ignite diesel as part of a fire-fighting course; the only way to get it to burn in a split oil drum was to heat the oil drum with a blow-torch to vaporise some of the fuel. Crude oil is, curiously, a Class A liquid, as it contains all the volatile fractions- hence the traffic to Fawley from Holybourne is conveyed in light-coloured tanks.

I wonder if that image of the BRC&W Type 3s was exempted from the need for barrier wagons because there were two locos? Was there a brake van at the other end (if it was prior to 1968, there should have been); if so, were there barriers in front of it?  I remember trains of 100t tanks from Milford Haven that had an MGR hopper at either end later than 1967.

Barriers, or more correctly Reach Wagons, were required at some sites (Micheldever being one) because locos were not allowed within the terminal site; sometimes these might travel with the train (but would be at one end of the train only), but more usually would be stabled nearby.

[Mark Saunders]

I remember trying to ignite diesel as part of a fire-fighting course; the only way to get it to burn in a split oil drum was to heat the oil drum with a blow-torch to vaporise some of the fuel. Crude oil is, curiously, a Class A liquid, as it contains all the volatile fractions- hence the traffic to Fawley from Holybourne is conveyed in light-coloured tanks.

I wonder if that image of the BRC&W Type 3s was exempted from the need for barrier wagons because there were two locos? Was there a brake van at the other end (if it was prior to 1968, there should have been); if so, were there barriers in front of it?  I remember trains of 100t tanks from Milford Haven that had an MGR hopper at either end later than 1967.

Barriers, or more correctly Reach Wagons, were required at some sites (Micheldever being one) because locos were not allowed within the terminal site; sometimes these might travel with the train (but would be at one end of the train only), but more usually would be stabled nearby.

 

The status of Crude Oil as class A product is shown by recent incidents in the USA and Canada!

 

Mark Saunders

[The Stationmaster]

I remember trying to ignite diesel as part of a fire-fighting course; the only way to get it to burn in a split oil drum was to heat the oil drum with a blow-torch to vaporise some of the fuel. Crude oil is, curiously, a Class A liquid, as it contains all the volatile fractions- hence the traffic to Fawley from Holybourne is conveyed in light-coloured tanks.

I wonder if that image of the BRC&W Type 3s was exempted from the need for barrier wagons because there were two locos? Was there a brake van at the other end (if it was prior to 1968, there should have been); if so, were there barriers in front of it?  I remember trains of 100t tanks from Milford Haven that had an MGR hopper at either end later than 1967.

Barriers, or more correctly Reach Wagons, were required at some sites (Micheldever being one) because locos were not allowed within the terminal site; sometimes these might travel with the train (but would be at one end of the train only), but more usually would be stabled nearby.

The barrier wagon requirements changed in the 1960s - and at other times - for example earlier requirements stated that only one barrier wagon was required.  This later changed, I think, to two and then they were done away with completely.  The challenge - as ever - is to date the changes!

[Il Grifone]

Somewhat darker (but with some dark weathering) in my September 2009 picture.  The problem of course is how different cameras render the colour plus how it looks on our different monitor screens although the adjacent bauxite painted Vanfit looks much the same colour as yours in my pic.  I always think a potential good guide can be contemporaneous model railway stock as Hornby Dublo tended to give a pretty good representation of wagon colours.

 

IMGP6907.jpg

 

Some examples of contemporary models of buff tank wagons here. Some evidence of fading is evident, as might be expected after at least 65 years.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=BUFF+TANK+WAGONS&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ7AlqFQoTCIW0-ILNhcYCFcQ6FAodjdQAtg&biw=1372&bih=783

 

I don't know how authentic the red paraffin tanks or the green 'Power' tanks were. (Both would have been Class A, I believe.)

Edited June 10, 2015 by Il Grifone

[DavidLong]

A few examples from John Vaughan colour pictures.

 

September 1960 4F 44386 at Harecastle. 1 x Unfitted High, 1 x 16T Mineral, 7 x Unfitted Class A tanks then rest of train in view is 16T minerals.

 

August 1963 D6508 near Worcester returning Class A Tanks to Fawley. Two Highfits behind loco followed by long block train of Class A tanks.

 

September 1964 31632 (U Class) at Yeovil Junction. Mixed freight. 2 x Vanfits, 2 x Highfits, 1 x Tube, 2 x Class A tanks, 1 x Class B tank, 1 x Highfit, 1 x Plate (I think) and 1 x SR 'Pill Box' Brake.

 

September 1965 D5197 at Harbury Junction. 2 x Class A tanks, 2 x Conflats then endless sheeted Highfits.

 

September 1965 D6549 'en route' from Fawley at Southampton Central. 1 x Class B, 1 x Class A, 1 x Class B, 1 x Class A, 1 X class B, 2 x Class A, 1 x Class B then picture cropped. An eclectic selection especially as the Class Bs are 35T type and Class A are early 45T type.

 

By the way, all the above, except 1960 photo, are Esso tanks.

 

David

[The Stationmaster]

Observed, and travelled on, on the West Highland extension, Easter 1969 Mixed Train headed by a D61XX composed of the passenger vehicles followed by 1x16ton min (unfitted), 1 x Class A Tank Car, 1 'other wagon (I can't remember what it was offhand), 1 x freight brakevan.

[DavidLong]

Observed, and travelled on, on the West Highland extension, Easter 1969 Mixed Train headed by a D61XX composed of the passenger vehicles followed by 1x16ton min (unfitted), 1 x Class A Tank Car, 1 'other wagon (I can't remember what it was offhand), 1 x freight brakevan.

Mike,

 

A D61xx! Did you make it to Mallaig?

 

David