More Pre-Grouping Wagons in 4mm - the D299 appreciation thread.

[Compound2632]

But the Stores wagon in the background caught my attention, because it looks to be the same as this one at Ebbw Vale, LNWR in 1914, and if so, it's way off it's beaten track.

Enquiries within the LNWR Society drew a blank in respect of it being a LNWR wagon.

Based on an earlier comment, I think in this topic, that all all LNWR wagons had split spoked wheels, it's not LNWR

 

Ebbw Vale - 1914 - Stores Wagon.jpg

 

It was me that mentioned the split spoked wheels - based on reading LNWR Wagons. I claim no expertise in LNWR matters so you've got me worried that I might be wrong but on a quick look through Vol. 1 of the aforesaid, I could find no counter-example apart from a few specialist vehicles with Mansell wheels.

 

Yes, I think that's another Midland D334 Stores Dept. Long Rail Wagon. Is not Ebbw Vale a place from which the Midland might have obtained rails? It does seem to be loaded with what could well be rails.

 

That's another one to tick off in one's ABC of Pre-Grouping wagons!

[Penlan]

.... I claim no expertise in LNWR matters so you've got me worried that I might be wrong but on a quick look through Vol. 1 of the aforesaid, I could find no counter-example ....

 

Yes, I think that's another Midland D334 Stores Dept. Long Rail Wagon. Is not Ebbw Vale a place from which the Midland might have obtained rails? It does seem to be loaded with what could well be rails.

1.  Don't worry, I looked through hundreds of photo's I have, and they are all split spoke - A programme of re-wheeling is slowly under-way.

 

2. There is a load, but I would have thought rails from Ebbw Vale would be via the GWR branch. The rails would be short too, which seems unlikely and presumably any scrap would go into the Derby furnaces.

[Compound2632]

It’s timely that standing next to the Midland Stores Dept. wagon in Penlan’s Ebbw Vale photo is a Great Western iron Mink van – according to the official terminology, diagram V6 I believe. Here’s one I built earlier:

 

 

The Ratio kit of course. See that as a 15-year-old I was already pre-Grouping savvy – 25” letters and single side brakes. I built two; over a year ago I stripped one down and started reassembling it, cutting 1 mm off the top of the sides and ends, to bring the roof-line down to the top of the doors:

 

 

Hmm… where’s the brake lever gone? We’re told the Ratio body is too tall – but are the doors the right height? – and too narrow – by how much? What else is wrong? (The short list please…) The kit has oil axleboxes – how common were these by c. 1903? Should I be looking to bodge grease ones?

 

I’m getting round to the selection of second-hand Great Western wagons I was given a year ago, starting with the outside-framed van that was identified as an Ian Kirk kit:

 

 

Confirmation that once the grey paint is stripped off a Great Western wagon, it’s red underneath!

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Compound2632
Images re-inserted

[Graham456]

Confirmation that once the grey paint is stripped off a Great Western wagon, it’s red underneath!

 

Yes very funny !

Actuly it just confirms what I told you yonks ago it's a Ian Kirk kit !

Ian Kirk used a sh%#y brown plastic for some of his kits which you have uncovered in your archeological digging around under the paint

Sad to say it isn't a original sample/shade of the long lost original wagon red we need to find, which I would put money on is nothing other than red lead paint?

Edited October 17, 2017 by Graham456

[Miss Prism]

We’re told the Ratio body is too tall – but are the doors the right height? – and too narrow – by how much? What else is wrong? (The short list please…) The kit has oil axleboxes – how common were these by c. 1903? Should I be looking to bodge grease ones?

 

Reducing the height of the sides and the ends so that the roof fits on top of the door, as you've done, will I think be the necessary correction to the body height. Not sure where the 'slightly too narrow' comment originates from, but a V6 should be 7'5" over the body sheets and 7'10" over stanchions. Have a measure.

 

I think a good case could be made either for oil or grease boxes c 1903. (MJT does some good grease ones.)

 

At 98p, iirc, the Ratio V6 was amazing value for its time. It's astonishing such an iconic vehicle has never been done RTR in 4mm.

[Compound2632]

Actuly it just confirms what I told you yonks ago it's a Ian Kirk kit !

 

Sad to say it isn't a original sample/shade of the long lost original wagon red we need to find, which I would put money on is nothing other than red lead paint?

 

Graham, thanks, yes looking back I see it was you who identified it. I have come round to the view that Great Western wagon red is indeed red lead, so Halford's red primer should do!

 

Reducing the height of the sides and the ends so that the roof fits on top of the door, as you've done, will I think be the necessary correction to the body height. Not sure where the 'slightly too narrow' comment originates from, but a V6 should be 7'5" over the body sheets and 7'10" over stanchions. Have a measure.

 

I think a good case could be made either for oil or grease boxes c 1903. (MJT does some good grease ones.)

 

At 98p, iirc, the Ratio V6 was amazing value for its time. It's astonishing such an iconic vehicle has never been done RTR in 4mm.

 

I don't think I could cope with the pre-production RMWeb topic!

 

The Ratio body is 29 mm over the sheeting, 7'3", 30.5 mm, 7'8", over stanchions,  so just a whisker under. My teenage painting probably took it up to scale width.

[Penlan]

I've a number of these Ian Kirk van bodies, that have been 'modelled' as old vans cascaded from the GWR to 'South Wales Mineral Rly', 'R&SBRly' and by adding a cross piece to the side panels - to make an X - the very rare Neath & Brecon Van No. 76.
Of it's time, the kit was OK.

[Lecorbusier]

Could I ask what may be an obvious question. I am trying to work out what kind of pre grouping wagons would have transported quarried limestone and mined spar ... specifically pre war when the majority were 8T wagons. I have been looking at the relative densities of limestone and spar in comparison with coal and the cubic capacities of MR wagons. What I have come up with is:-

 

 I have found the following figures on weights:-

 

Fluor Spar (Solid) - 200 pound per cubic foot

Fluor Spar (lumps) - 100 pound per cubic foot

Fluor Spar (pulverised) - 90 pound per cubic foot

 

Limestone (solid) - 163 pound per cubic foot

Limestone (broken) - 97 pound per cubic foot

Limestone (pulverised) - 87 pound per cubic foot

 

Coal Bituminous (solid) - 84 pound per cubic foot

Coal Bituminous (broken) - 52 pound per cubic foot.

 

Assuming these figure are correct....

 

Looking at MR wagons available in 1910 - not exhaustive at all!

 

10T 6 plank - 366 cu ft (1902) - full of broken coal = 8.5T - full of pulverised limestone = 14.2T

 

12T 6 plank - 435 cu ft (1904) - full of broken coal = 10.1T - full of pulverised limestone = 16.9T 

12T 7 Plank - 480 cu ft (1909) - full of broken coal = 11.1T - full of pulverised limestone = 18.6T

 

8T 7 Plank (hopper bottom) - 290 cu ft (1890s) - full of broken coal = 6.7T - full of pulverised limestone = 11.2T

8T 5 Plank - 292 cu ft (1890s) - full of broken coal = 6.7T - full of pulverised limestone = 11.3T

8T 3 Plank - 180 cu ft (1890s) - full of broken coal = 4.2T - full of pulverised limestone = 7T

 

 

What quickly becomes apparent from this exercise is that (if the figures are valid)  limestone or Calcite spar can't be transported in any waggon above 4 plank without severe overloading ... particularly as pre 1910 we are likely to be talking of 8T wagons? 

 

However I am sure I have seen 5 plank wagons loaded with stone? Does anyone have any thoughts/views on this?

[Compound2632]

Could I ask what may be an obvious question. I am trying to work out what kind of pre grouping wagons would have transported quarried limestone and mined spar ... specifically pre war when the majority were 8T wagons. I have been looking at the relative densities of limestone and spar in comparison with coal and the cubic capacities of MR wagons. What I have come up with is:-

 

 I have found the following figures on weights:-

 

Fluor Spar (Solid) - 200 pound per cubic foot

Fluor Spar (lumps) - 100 pound per cubic foot

Fluor Spar (pulverised) - 90 pound per cubic foot

 

Limestone (solid) - 163 pound per cubic foot

Limestone (broken) - 97 pound per cubic foot

Limestone (pulverised) - 87 pound per cubic foot

 

Coal Bituminous (solid) - 84 pound per cubic foot

Coal Bituminous (broken) - 52 pound per cubic foot.

 

Assuming these figure are correct....

 

Looking at MR wagons available in 1910 - not exhaustive at all!

 

10T 6 plank - 366 cu ft (1902) - full of broken coal = 8.5T - full of pulverised limestone = 14.2T

 

12T 6 plank - 435 cu ft (1904) - full of broken coal = 10.1T - full of pulverised limestone = 16.9T 

12T 7 Plank - 480 cu ft (1909) - full of broken coal = 11.1T - full of pulverised limestone = 18.6T

 

8T 7 Plank (hopper bottom) - 290 cu ft (1890s) - full of broken coal = 6.7T - full of pulverised limestone = 11.2T

8T 5 Plank - 292 cu ft (1890s) - full of broken coal = 6.7T - full of pulverised limestone = 11.3T

8T 3 Plank - 180 cu ft (1890s) - full of broken coal = 4.2T - full of pulverised limestone = 7T

 

 

What quickly becomes apparent from this exercise is that (if the figures are valid)  limestone or Calcite spar can't be transported in any waggon above 4 plank without severe overloading ... particularly as pre 1910 we are likely to be talking of 8T wagons? 

 

However I am sure I have seen 5 plank wagons loaded with stone? Does anyone have any thoughts/views on this?

 

I'd have thought that for your location and date, the D299 5-plank 8 ton wagon would have been the staple vehicle for the limestone &c traffic. I think the answer is that each loaded wagon would pass over a weighbridge so any cases of overloading would be identified before the wagon left the quarry sidings; in any case the quarrymen doing the loading would rapidly develop a good eye for what constituted a full load.

 

Of course the weighing is primarily for financial purposes.

 

Going back to this photo, the Lilleshall wagons were identified as bringing limestone for the South Wales iron and steel industry (or in this case for zinc refining at the adjacent spelter works) from quarries owned by the Lilleshall company. They're clearly not as high-sided as the coal wagons but probably of similar capacity (volume) as the Midland 5-plank wagons.

 

This whole question of loading has us delving into lost arts.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Compound2632

[Lecorbusier]

Interesting Stephen,

 

I have found images such as this one

 

http://www.wirksworth.org.uk/x447.htm

 

But this of course is a 12T wagon ... which would work with my figures above.

 

I have also found this

 

http://www.oswestry-borderland-heritage.co.uk/?page=133

 

Which is a 286 cuft 10T wagon .... so 11T if full of pulverised limestone as per my figures above .... given that they would never have been loaded to the brim this is also conceivable.

 

However the 8T 5 plank dims would suggest at least 25% overloading with my figures?

 

I have found some images in Bill Hudson's book ... through limestone hills ... under the Matlock section with 3 plank wagons for limestone. I am just trying to establish if it was the advent of the 10T wagon which prompted a shift to five plank for stone, or if the five plank would have just been 3/4 loaded .... I am mindful that the smaller wharfs such as at Monsal Dale did not have weighing facilities.

[Miss Prism]

In the Forest of Dean, where they did a bit of stone loading, I think 3-plankers were the norm, presumably on the basis that they had a sufficient depth of side to carry a '10 ton' load. Here's an old Mainline example, the wagon is too fat and too long, and is probably on the wrong underframe, but you get my drift:

https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/937362-LN03_3309852_Qty1_2.jpg

[Lecorbusier]

In the Forest of Dean, where they did a bit of stone loading, I think 3-plankers were the norm, presumably on the basis that they had a sufficient depth of side to carry a '10 ton' load. Here's an old Mainline example, the wagon is too fat and too long, and is probably on the wrong underframe, but you get my drift:

https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/937362-LN03_3309852_Qty1_2.jpg

Thanks, this is reassuring.

 

Most of the photo's I have managed to uncover are for lime wagons ... which appear to be 4 plank for the 8T weight limit ... but frustratingly I am struggling to find wagons with freshly quarried limestone or spar being taken for processing.

[Compound2632]

In the Forest of Dean, where they did a bit of stone loading, I think 3-plankers were the norm, presumably on the basis that they had a sufficient depth of side to carry a '10 ton' load. Here's an old Mainline example, the wagon is too fat and too long, and is probably on the wrong underframe, but you get my drift:

https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/937362-LN03_3309852_Qty1_2.jpg

 

There seems to have been a difference between limestone, considered as a mineral traffic, and building stone. The latter seems to have travelled in very low-sided wagons - one or two planks being usual (and watch this thread...) See this postcard of Corsham - quite a few of these stone wagons are dumb buffered. (And for added value there's a couple of D299 wagons there too!) Any guesses on date?

[Lecorbusier]

What a fantastic photo.

 

Not surprised by the 1-2 plank wagons ....  solid, in density terms, according to my figures is twice that of pulverised.

 

Now ..... guess the date .... hmmm! It looks pre war to me .... 1910 ish?

Edited October 17, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[Miss Prism]

Now ..... guess the date .... hmmm! It looks pre war to me .... 1910 ish?

 

Could be earlier than that given the amount of dumb buffers present.

[Guy Rixon]

The LSWR, which has Beer on its patch, also had some 1-plank wagons to carry building stone. I think they were a normal length over headstocks but rated for 20 tons load.

 

Some of the later wagons for tarred road-stone were 5 planks tall.

[Lecorbusier]

 

Of course the weighing is primarily for financial purposes.

 

Going back to this photo, the Lilleshall wagons were identified as bringing limestone for the South Wales iron and steel industry (or in this case for zinc refining at the adjacent spelter works) from quarries owned by the Lilleshall company. They're clearly not as high-sided as the coal wagons but probably of similar capacity (volume) as the Midland 5-plank wagons.

 

This whole question of loading has us delving into lost arts.

Interesting that in the photo you link there are clearly some MR five plank wagons with 2/3 load stone .... so I assume loaded by weighing? or the 'good eye' of the quarryman. Are they 8T or 10T wagons do you think?

[wagonman]

Could be earlier than that given the amount of dumb buffers present.

 

 

For what it's worth, Marsh Son & Gibbs were taken over by Bath Stone Firms in 1910, and the Timsbury Colliery wagon is in the old style style livery that was superseded when Beaumont Kennedy & Co took over following the death of the previous owner in 1904, so I would guess at a date c1905-6. The Camerton Collieries wagon 310 in the foreground was supplied by Wheeler & Gregory (of Radstock) in September 1901.

 

 

Richard

[Compound2632]

Interesting that in the photo you link there are clearly some MR five plank wagons with 2/3 load stone .... so I assume loaded by weighing? or the 'good eye' of the quarryman. Are they 8T or 10T wagons do you think?

 

Good spot - I hadn't noticed how those two were loaded, the focus of attention being the wagons with sheet rails - the explanation for which is interesting, if you're willing to pick out the dozen or so relevant posts out of the next 100!

 

I'm pretty confident they are bog standard D299 8 ton wagons - the later 10 ton wagons to D663A have distinctive extra vertical strapping where the letters M R are and also oil axleboxes, and are very late Midland - 1921 onwards. My gut feeling about that photo is that it's pre Great War.

[Andy Hayter]

Interesting that in the photo you link there are clearly some MR five plank wagons with 2/3 load stone .... so I assume loaded by weighing? or the 'good eye' of the quarryman. Are they 8T or 10T wagons do you think?

 

I doubt good eye was needed.   5 plank wagons have 5 planks.  Load to between planks 2 and 3 and you have 8 ton rough hewn limestone.  Load to some other level for pulverised limestone and so on.  Most loading points would be for one or two cargoes only so a wide range of specialisation would not be required.

[Lecorbusier]

I doubt good eye was needed.   5 plank wagons have 5 planks.  Load to between planks 2 and 3 and you have 8 ton rough hewn limestone.  Load to some other level for pulverised limestone and so on.  Most loading points would be for one or two cargoes only so a wide range of specialisation would not be required.

I wonder if there was a cost difference between three, four and 5 plank wagons .... otherwise why would you bother? .... perhaps ease of loading or unloading. I suppose tipping in to a 3 plank wagon would require less height in the loading wharf and if the wagons were all dedicated private user wagons then that would make some sense? Any thoughts?

[Compound2632]

For what it's worth, Marsh Son & Gibbs were taken over by Bath Stone Firms in 1910, and the Timsbury Colliery wagon is in the old style style livery that was superseded when Beaumont Kennedy & Co took over following the death of the previous owner in 1904, so I would guess at a date c1905-6. The Camerton Collieries wagon 310 in the foreground was supplied by Wheeler & Gregory (of Radstock) in September 1901.

 

 

Richard

 

The houses going up the hill are on the 1919 OS 25" map but not the 1899 edition. So I don't think that really narrows the date down at all!

 

I'd been wondering about the loading of building stone, as I have a Cambrian kit of a Gloucester 1-plank wagon that I built a while ago but have just got POWSides "Bath Stone Firms" transfers for. The snag is that the reference photos I had until seeing this one were from the Keith Montague Gloucester wagon book, and are of steel-framed rather than wood framed wagons. All the stone seems to be rough-cut large pieces, presumably more-or-less as they came out of the quarry. More photos, from 1928: things don't seem to have changed much but there is some quite higgledy-piggledy loading with large blocks loaded at angles or even resting on the wagon sides and projecting a few inches overboard. Note the crane with pincer holding a large block - exactly how is the weight supported?

 

Sorry, we're drifting off the limestone question. Looking through Through Limestone Hills, I'm reminded how few pre-1914 photos it contains. Plate 116 is nearer to the Corsham discussion, showing finished millstones loaded in what I take to be two pairs per D305 3-plank 8 ton dropside wagon, said to be c. 1900. Plate 221, though dated 1935, does show an ancient 4-plank stone wagon, said to be converted from dumb buffers. Plate 282 shows that as late as 1911 10 ton wagons with only 4 planks were being built for this traffic; all agrees with Lecorbusier's loading analysis.

[billbedford]

I'm pretty confident they are bog standard D299 8 ton wagons - the later 10 ton wagons to D663A have distinctive extra vertical strapping where the letters M R are and also oil axleboxes, and are very late Midland - 1921 onwards. My gut feeling about that photo is that it's pre Great War.

 

 

I think that the wagons with sheet rails are to D302. They appear to be longer and wider than the two loaded with limestone and also appear to have a longer wheelbase. D302 were rated at 10T. I'm not sure that fitting sheet rails would have necessitated a separate diagram, especially if they were branded for a specific traffic.

[Compound2632]

I think that the wagons with sheet rails are to D302. They appear to be longer and wider than the two loaded with limestone and also appear to have a longer wheelbase. D302 were rated at 10T. I'm not sure that fitting sheet rails would have necessitated a separate diagram, especially if they were branded for a specific traffic.

 

The conclusion from the discussion of the wagons with sheet rails was that they are D299 specially fitted for zinc traffic - a cargo that needed particular protection from the wet. Thank you for mentioning D302 (built from 1913 onwards) which I had overlooked when mentioning D663A. Notwithstanding the diagram, photos of D302 wagons show the same additional vertical strapping as D663A, also oil axleboxes. The wagons with sheet rail have Ellis 10A grease axleboxes.

[Andy Hayter]

I wonder if there was a cost difference between three, four and 5 plank wagons .... otherwise why would you bother? .... perhaps ease of loading or unloading. I suppose tipping in to a 3 plank wagon would require less height in the loading wharf and if the wagons were all dedicated private user wagons then that would make some sense? Any thoughts?

 

There are actually a lot more questions in there than you might imagine.

 

So let's start with the picture and the 2 MR wagons half loaded with stone.  The Midland beauty of standardisation meant that many wagons were near as damn it identical, which makes the job of the loader at a loading point relatively quite easy.  Private owner wagons however might come from a variety of sources (even within one company) and there could easily be differences in the loading levels between one source of wagons (perhaps Roberts) and another (say Gloucester).  So while I did dismiss the good eye earlier, where Private owner wagons are concerned there may indeed be a need for some extra knowledge.

 

As for why 5 plank rather than 4, 3 or 2 plank: this comes down firstly to capacity and likely cargoes.  You cannot get 8t rough hewn limestone in a 2 plank wagon (judging by the photograph we have just been examining) without it spilling out en route.  You can however get blocks of limestone in such a wagon.  Likewise you cannot stack 8t grain in 1cwt (roughly 50kg) sacks in anything less than a 5 plank wagon without having to do some very severe lashing down to ensure that the stack of sacks does not fall off.  [Do not be misled into thinking that a wagon sheet will hold the load in place.   It won't.  The sheet provides weather protection and just possibly some very minimal aid to load stability, but if a load starts to move the sheet will not hold it in place. ]

 

So you then end up with the age old problems of building wagons for each cargo type (with lower, cheaper and lighter wagons for part of the fleet) versus having standardisation with all the benefits that that brings in building, maintaining and managing.  There is no "right" answer and different companies found different right solutions for them.  The Midland siding heavily for standardisation, much as British Rail would try and do 50 years or so later.