Dungrange

Thanks @Michael Hodgson - might different companies have used different features to categorise their fleet? A GER Diagram 48 7-plan open wagon looks like: The GER categorised these wagons as 'Open wagons'. I think this has tie down points for tarpaulins (the rings below the bottom planks but above the steel solebar), and therefore that implies that this wagon is suitable for carrying general merchandise (because it can be covered with a tarpaulin). I'm assuming from your reply that mineral wagons didn't have these. It doesn't have full height doors either side but is capable of opening to full height either side, as the top two planks had side hinges. Therefore by a combination of opening the five plank door downwards and the two top doors sideways, it was possible to gain access for the full height of the wagon. Again, I think that means that this meets your definition of an open wagon if I read it as a wagon capable of providing full height access. I'm assuming that if there had been no side opening doors on the top two planks (ie they had been continuous), then this would have been classified as a Mineral Wagon? Perhaps this might explain why the GER seems to have had so few 'Mineral Wagons' compared other pre-grouping railway companies. At 31 December 1920, the NER had 57,679 Mineral Wagons, the NBR 35,556, the Caledonian 27,734 and the Midland 24,022, with the first three of these companies having more Mineral than Open wagons. Of all the large companies, only the GWR is comparable with the GER classing just 772 of their wagons as Mineral Wagons. However, if these companies with large mineral wagons fleets had a large number of 7-plank wagons and these were constructed with continuous planks (ie not capable of being opened the full height of the wagon) and the GER built there 7-plank wagons as per the photograph above, then this may explain why there seems to be such large differences in the breakdown of each pre-grouping companies wagon fleets.

A simple question, which I'm guessing doesn't have a simple answer. What is the difference between an open wagon and a mineral wagon? All of the large pre-grouping railway companies tended to distinguish between these two groups of wagons but I'm not sure what the differentiating features between these two categories are. The reason I ask is that looking at the accounts and statistical returns for the Great Eastern Railway for the year ended 31 December 1922, the GER Traffic receipts for goods originating on the company's system is given as: Merchandise 2,929,996 tons Coal, Coke and Patent Fuel 130,266 tons Other Minerals 1,098,104 tons Total 4,168,366 tons I would therefore expect these goods to be loaded into GER wagons (in pre-pooling days). With 26% of goods tonnage originating at GER stations being 'other Mineral' traffic, I'd have expected the GER to have a significant number of 'mineral wagons' to convey this traffic (less than 26% of the fleet because of higher density loads, but perhaps 15% of the fleet). However, the breakdown of merchandise and mineral vehicles for the GER at the same date is given as: Open wagons - 18,291 Covered Wagons - 5,311 Mineral Wagons - 175 Special Wagons - 204 Cattle Trucks - 1,653 Rail and Timber trucks - 979 Brake Vans - 600 Total - 27,213 That means that less than 1% of the GER fleet was classified as 'mineral wagons', yet 26% of tons lifted was 'mineral traffic'. These two figures don't align well, so I think that means that either some of the GER open wagons should have been classified as mineral wagons, some mineral traffics are usually transported in open wagons rather that mineral wagons, or the GER was heavily reliant on Private Owner wagons for 'other mineral' traffic. I understand that was the case with regards coal, but it appears that other mineral traffic is a much more significant commodity than coal and a much greater proportion of GER mineral traffic originated in the GER area. Where only 3% of the GER's Coal, Coke and Patent Fuel traffic originated at GER stations (97% was imported), 52% of the 'other mineral' traffic originated at GER stations, which is not dissimilar to the 58% of general merchandise traffic that originated at GER stations.

I asked the designer that a couple of weeks back and was told that 'unfortunately the panelling and windows aren't conducive to chopping into a four wheeler'. I guess it depends on how accurate a model you want?

Is this the model that you are looking for? https://www.aceproducts.org/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=193 I've no idea how good a kit it is and I know nothing about Ace Products.

I think you'll find that most modern models are designed for a minimum of second radius. If you choose to use first radius curves, then you're not guaranteed reliable running.

I agreed that they may not be viable for Rapido, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like (and would definitely buy) one (or more). However, according to Peter Paye's book on The Wisbech and Upwell Tramway, four of the six four wheelers (the ones to Diagram 601) were also transferred to the Tollesbury Light Railway in 1928 for further use. It was only the two four wheel tramcars to Diagram 600 that were scrapped when the W&U passenger services ceased. As such, a Diagram 601 four wheeler could be a companion for those modelling the Tollesbury Light Railway in LNER days. Unfortunately three of these were withdrawn from service on 16 May 1936, which means only one of the four wheelers survived into BR ownership and it was withdrawn on 20th March 1948, so wouldn't have carried a BR livery. It could of course be produced in a fictional BR livery just like these tramcars. I don't think no 16 was ever classed as a Sundry Van - it was a four wheel passenger brake van to Diagram 611 (which I think was unique). Following withdrawal from service on the W&U, it apparently served as a coal office at Dovercourt until 1963, so although the body was 'long lived', I suspect there isn't a big enough market to justify the tooling (unless Rapido have sold lots of GER Train packs). As for the sundry vans, if you pick the 22' long ones introduced between 1888 and 1899, there were a total of 96 vans to numerous diagrams, but with minor differences between them. I understood that these were all withdrawn from traffic in the 1930s bar a few that entered departmental stock, but I hadn't realised that some of these lasted as long as c1970. By that time they must have been nearing 80 years old. I was only aware of the three Diagram 34 vans that were converted to fruit traffic office vans in 1937, which survived until 1950. If Rapido could do these, that would be great. Two GER liveries (Stratford Brown & Crimson Lake), two LNER liveries (in service and departmental) and surviving into BR ownership they sound like an ideal subject for Rapido. ... but I still think they should start with a Diagram 17 Open and a Diagram 56 Brake van. If I say it often enough, it might come true. 🙂

The Diagram 56 Brake van is also a model I can't find a kit for and it appears that when the usual passenger brake coach No16 wasn't available (eg for maintenance reasons) that an ordinary goods brake van was used with the passenger tram, so it could be attached to these new W&U tramcars, even although I've yet to see photographic evidence of this. It's also a model that I'd want to buy several of. Yes, I'd also love some more specific W&U stock like the four wheel tramcars and models of the various diagrams of Sundry Van, but I think Rapido should pick the low hanging fruit first.

I never actually intended building a model of the W&U Tramway, but having a couple of Rapido's GER Tram packs on order and having bought or pre-ordered some of their other pre-grouping era wagons to go with it, I'd love that to be the case. Of course the brake coach, no 16, is the most pressing item of stock required to complement the train packs. Is there enough demand for Rapido to take the risk? All I note is that all of Hatton's Genesis coaches in GER Stratford Brown have sold out on pre-order, so there is clearly demand for more GER stock. However, if I were Rapido, I'd be testing the GER market by producing either a Diagram 17 Open wagon or a Diagram 56 Brake van first. If these sell well, then there's perhaps less risk in considering other GER prototypes.

I agree. Given their diminutive stature, I've wondered what they would look like converted to 009.

..and by the Working Timetable definition, that would be classed as a Passenger Train: comprising only two non passenger vehicles but still being fully fitted passenger rated stock. It's evidence of unfitted goods stock tagged on to the rear that I'd like to find evidence of. I agree it makes sense for Rapido to have made non-Titfield versions. Why did they chose to make the other bogie tramcar? They could have made one of the more numerous four wheel versions instead. 🙂 I guess the problem with that is that it would have required a completely new model tooling (body and chassis), whereas the other bogie tramcar, whilst to a different diagram and therefore requiring a different body tooling, probably had enough similar components across the chassis to mean that they felt the incremental increase in sales justified the additional cost of tooling both versions. I'm fairly sure that the majority of those buying one coach will have bought the other and the fact that two coaches are available probably increases sales anyway, as some people may not have bought any if only one were produced, but have bought two since they can now form a train. Then during the research stage it was probably as easy to research both as to just research one, especially when the preserved version is apparently not the one used in the film. I can certainly ignore the bar being at the wrong end, because my four being the pre-grouping GER versions wont have a bar at all. I'm looking forward to seeing these in the flesh.

I'd assume that the GER would route Lancashire traffic via the GN/GE Joint line and then the Dearne Valley to Lancashire and Yorkshire railway territory, but I suppose they could also have handed over the Great Central Railway at Lincoln. However, as you say, traffic may also have been routed via the Midland. However, I think all of these companies used vacuum brakes, so the challenge would be the same. Oh the challenges in conveying goods over significant distances. I suppose that means it doesn't matter whether the wagons were Westinghouse fitted with a through Vacuum pipe or Vacuum fitted with a through Westinghouse pipe, which means that it would obviously have been conceivable to hire in foreign vacuum stock for periods of peak demand.

Yes, I'm aware of these Working Instructions, but only the very early Working Timetables in the 1880s differentiate the various services as Passenger, Mixed and Goods Trams. In later Working Timetables the services are defined as either Passenger or Goods (even if the loading instructions for Mixed Trams was retained in the notes at the bottom until passenger services ceased in 1927). The only photograph that I recall seeing with a caption referring to a Mixed Tram on the W&U (it's late pre-grouping) appears to have four fitted vehicles in the rake (a couple of Sundry Vans and what looks like a horsebox or similar) with the passenger accommodation at the rear. I cant say that unfitted goods wagons weren't conveyed alongside the passenger coaches, but I've seen no evidence that this was the case after the initial years. If there are any photographs of such a service, I'd love to see them.

Apart from a couple of vans being attached to the passenger trams at Upwell, the majority of the fruit from Upwell and all of the fruit from the other depots would have been conveyed in goods trams. However, this raises an interesting question. In Peter Paye's book on The Wisbech and Upwell Tramway, he refers to strawberry's being conveyed overnight to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Once off the Tramway, these were obviously conveyed, either in passenger trains or express goods trains and since the Great Eastern Railway (GER), North Eastern Railway (NER) and North British Railway (NBR) all used the Westinghouse brake, the conveyance of products to the north would have been straightforward. However, for produce heading west to say Birmingham, there is the issue of the braking system used by the company or companies over whose tracks the service needed to run. I understand that the London North Western Railway (LNWR) used the vacuum brake, so how would fruit have been conveyed to Birmingham? Using dual braked stock (I don't think the few fruit vans that the GER had were dual braked) GER Westinghouse fitted vans as far as Peterborough, which would then be conveyed as though they were unfitted over the LNWR network LNWR Vacuum fitted vans, which would be conveyed as far as Peterborough in ordinary goods trains by the GER but then in express goods services by the LNWR GER Westinghouse fitted vans as far as Peterborough and then transhipped to LNWR vacuum fitted stock at Peterborough Any thoughts? It would appear that in the in the harvesting season, up to 1,000 tons of fruit was being dispatched each week, so that probably required 300 wagons per week or 50 wagons per day, which is a lot of demand for wagons that are in low in numbers.

I agree. I think the majority of the land was used for arable farming, so beef stock wasn't a major trade. I think it was just a few small dairy farms, which produced some outbound milk traffic (but probably not in sufficient quantities to justify the use of one of the GER milk wagons there was only 20 or 30 of them) and the cattle movements were, as you indicate, for local slaughter and for breeding swaps. I think the trainloads of cattle from Scotland for fattening up went elsewhere in East Anglia. I agree that does indicate that any traffic was regular small quantities and not large numbers of wagons at a specific time of year. Agreed. I suspect that the traffic was generally one or two wagons to Wisbech on market day (Thursday) and that there may have been just a single wagon on other days to whatever other local markets the local farmers wanted to use. No need to cater for the peak in demand (which might have been three wagons) if a single wagon was the regular maximum. As you say, loading, shunting and loading the next wagon wouldn't have been a major issue on market day.

I'm not sure that there was a fixed formation. On page 212 Peter lists mileage of each tramcar in 1914 as follows: Total passenger tram miles - 23,136 Tramcar no 1 - 4,620 Tramcar no 2 - 4,168 Tramcar no 3 - 3,420 Tramcar no 4 - 6,576 Tramcar no 5 - 9,672 Tramcar no 6 - 14,560 Tramcar no 7 - 10,444 Tramcar no 8 - 8,020 Brake no 16 - 19,976 Ordinary brake - 3,180 This indicates that in 1914 bogie tramcar no 7 was used more than bogie tramcar no 8, but nonetheless was included in less than half of services and there was clearly quite a few services that didn't include either no 7 or no 8. The mileage figures for the Brake no 16 and an ordinary goods brake equate to almost the same figure as total miles, so it appears that one or other was used on all trains. I think it's just that the baseline level of demand probably equated to either three four wheelers or a four wheeler and a bogie tramcar and then others were added to that as required. I suspect that what you're interpreting as a fixed formation is just one four wheel and one bogie coach but that which four wheeler and which bogie coach many have changed day to day or certainly week to week. I suspect that all tail traffic was fitted, in which case there may not have been a need for a goods brake van as well as no 16. That's my conclusion as well. I think Brake no 16 was always at the Upwell end of the train.

Yes, it's a bit of a challenge dealing with little snippets of data rather than having a comprehensive dataset to analyse. Sadly they didn't have large databases to analyse in Excel. However, I'll get there.

And I've just realised how important that is. When looking at livestock, I've calculated that ~ 0.055% of the GER livestock revenue was attributed to the W&U Tramway. I was assuming that I could use that to calculate livestock transportation demand, but of course that figure only gives the revenue for the 6 miles that the cattle were on the tramway between Upwell and Wisbech. That's fine if all livestock traffic only went to / from Wisbech, but since there was known trade with other local markets, I need to multiply my estimates using the methodology I've adopted by the demand weighted average trip distance for the commodity type / length of the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. So, if the average distance that cattle travelled was 60 miles, then my estimates are obviously out by a factor of ten. Maybe my less than one cattle truck per week needs to be just less than ten per week. I think I need to add a notice of correction to a few of my earlier posts, so that anyone else reading this in the future doesn't make the same mistake. As per my ramble above, I think I agree. I'm underestimating the demand by a factor of the demand weighted average trip length / the length of the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway, so clearly there was more than one wagon per weeks worth of demand.

I agree that avoiding market day means there's no need for any cattle wagons. However, the information in Peter Paye's book suggests that the traffic was relatively frequent, but it would appear in small quantities. "Cattle wagons were a common feature until the 1950s for the conveyance of livestock to Wisbech, Kings Lynn and Ely markets held on Thursday, Tuesday and Thursday respectively. Some animals were sent further afield to Cambridge, Peterborough and Huntingdon." That coupled with the low revenue in 1914 makes me think that whilst there were regular local markets, the farmers with livestock would not have been buying and selling animals each week, so on some market days there may have been trade and on others there might not. Peter Paye goes on to say that "Thursday was Wisbech market day and most early trains would convey cattle wagons with animals for trading whilst the late afternoon services would return with calves and heifers bought by farmers for fattening". Use of the word most implies that some market day trains conveyed no animals, although the use of the word wagons (plural) implies that sometimes there was more than one. I haven't seen a photograph with more than one cattle wagon in it, but there is also a quote from the April 1919 copy of the Great Eastern Railway Magazine, which stated "The tramway carried over 2,700 passengers on a recent Saturday. On one trip the six miles journey was done in the scheduled 39 minutes including twelve stops on route, with all cars and three loaded cattle trucks. Not bad for a small four coupled tram engine." Of course whilst it's stated that the three cattle truck were loaded, it doesn't necessarily mean that they were loaded with livestock. I understand all sorts of arable crops were conveyed in whatever type of wagon was available. I don't think there was any long distance movement of large quantities of cattle into the area for fattening as it was mainly arable farmland. I don't think there were any sheep or pigs either. I therefore think I could get by without a single cattle wagon. It's the thousands of tons of general merchandise that I'm more interested in.

I'm aware of the Railway Yearbooks, which give a breakdown of the stock of each company, which I think is probably based on shareholder reports. These give a breakdown of the wagon fleet for each company into: Open wagons; Covered vans; Mineral wagons; Special wagons; Cattle wagons; Rail and timber wagons; Brake vans; Miscellaneous; and Service vehicles. However, what the above breakdown doesn't give is whether or not these wagons were fitted. So for example, as at 31 December 1920, the Midland Railway railway apparently owned 78,703 open wagons, 12,722 covered vans, 24,022 mineral wagons, 498 special wagons, 1,695 cattle wagons, 1,986 rail and timber wagons, 1,530 brake vans and 7,685 service vehicles. What I'd like to know is how many of these open and covered vans were fitted? The reason I ask is that it was only the unfitted open wagons that were pooled in 1917 and only the unfitted covered vans that were pooled in 1919, so I'd like to understand the proportion of fitted to unfitted vehicles to estimate the impact of wagon pooling. Assuming the information isn't readily available for all companies, I'm most interested in the fleets of the Great Eastern Railway (GER), the Midland Railway (MR), the Great Northern Railway (GNR), the London and North Western Railway (LNWR), the Great Western Railway (GWR), the North Eastern Railway (NER) and the Great Central Railway (GCR). I'm assuming that perhaps just 1-2% of open wagons were fitted, but that the proportion of vans that were fitted was probably higher: maybe around 8-10%. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Well, apparently the weight of a bull is around 1.1 tons. If I were to express other animals in terms of bulls, I'd get an even lower number for cattle wagons required.

That's true, although the livestock figures in the statistical returns state that they are carried by goods trains, whereas horseboxes were, I think, normally conveyed in passenger trains. That said, I'm not sure where else revenue from horsebox movements would have been accounted for. Either way, it appears that there wasn't substantial livestock traffic on the W&U Tramway. Again, that's true. The livestock figures I quoted earlier were only the animals conveyed at station-to-station rates on the GER system. The total figures for the year ending 31 December 1913 was given as 1,790,329 animals of which 1,411,053 animals originated on the GER network (which is what the stated breakdown refers to). This implies that 79% of livestock traffic was local, with the other 21% being conveyed in foreign company wagons. Clearly a foreign cattle wagon could be justified, but in my case, they'd make up a very small proportion of overall traffic.

Understanding how items were classified in accounts is a mystery to me. There are two tables of goods tonnages in the GER accounts for 1922. The first of these uses the broad categories of 'Merchandise', 'Coal, Coke and Patent Fuel' and 'Other Minerals'. Tonnages are given as a total and also as a tonnage originating on the company's system. The figures for 1922 were as follows: Merchandise 5,083,534 2,939,996 Coal, Coke and Patent Fuel 5,055,166 130,266 Other Minerals 2,095,922 1,098,104 Total 12,234,672 4,168,366 This would imply that 42% of general merchandise traffic originated off the GER network and therefore in pre-pooling days, this could give a reasonable estimate of the importance of foreign company wagons. A higher proportion of coal was imported, as is probably obvious due to the lack of coal fields in East Anglia. The other is a list of what is termed 'the principal classes of minerals and merchandise carried by goods trains'. The figures for 1922 are as follows: Bricks, Common and Fireclay 194,249 Cement 70,377 Flour, Bran, Sharps and other Flour Mill Offal 231,829 Grain 655,307 Hay, Clover and Straw 90,870 Iron and Steel Bars, Joists, Girder Work and Plates 9,702 Iron and Steel Blooms Billets and Ingots 251 Iron and Steel Scrap 79,918 Iron and Steel, other descriptions 15,707 Iron, Pig 2,360 Ironstone and Iron Ore 15,892 Limestone (other than Roadmaking or Agricultural) 34 Manure 323,375 Potatoes 299,892 Sand 83,248 Stone, for Roadmaking 156,424 Timber, Pitwood and Mining 2,831 Timber, other descriptions 104,010 Vegetables, other than potatoes 149,329 Coal, Coke and Patent Fuel 130,266 Total 2,615,871 'Fertiliser' doesn't appear on that list, so it could indeed be included within the term 'manure', but of course there is also around 1.5 million tons of goods traffic that originated on GER metals that isn't accounted for in that list (ie 4.1 million - 2.6 million). Why was limestone given a category, but fruit wasn't? Overall it appears that the majority of that 1.5 million is probably mineral traffic, which I am less interested in.

What were you expecting to be posted here? Revolution Trains website is usually the best place to look for the latest information with regards deliveries and since they are not yet in the country, there is nothing worth posting about. If the container from China is delivered to the UK on 20 November, and it then takes a week or so to clear customs, Revolution trains won't be starting posting out models until the end of the month, so I'd guess it will be the first week of December before we start seeing pictures on here, Facebook etc.

Well, that's good to know. From the data available I can obviously calculate the number of wagonloads quite accurately, but where within the GER territory these were moved were just a guess (obviously a wrong one). I don't think I'm going to have much luck with this, as not only were cattle wagons built as small, medium and large with partitions to allow 'part loads' to be carried, but there is also the issue that cows, sheep and pigs all vary by breed (and I don't have that sort of detail). However, it appears that a female cow typically weights around 720 kg. The average slaughter weight of a calf is apparently around 330kg, so around half the weight of a female cow. Pigs can weight anything between 50 kg and 350 kg, so if I take a reasonably central figure of 180 kg, that would mean four pigs = one cow. Similarly sheep seem to weight anything between 45 kg and 100kg (females) / 160 kg (males), so if I take a fairly central figure of 72kg, then that would mean ten sheep = one cow. Assuming one horse = one cow, then summing all of that up gives me the equivalent of 242 cows / horses per annum on the Tramway. The Science museum (https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co205936/british-railways-cattle-wagon-railway-wagon) give a figure of seven heads of cattle per 8 ton wagon, so that equates to 35 wagons per annum (ie less than one per week). Of course the other way of looking at it, is that on 31 December 1920, the GER had 1,749 cattle wagons. If 0.055% of livestock revenue came from the W&U Tramway, then it would seem reasonable to assume that 0.055% of the wagon fleet was 'allocated' to this traffic, which equates to just shy of one wagon. Looks like I don't need too many cattle wagons. Notice of Correction: The 0.055% of revenue attributed to the W&U Tramway will only account for the proportion of the revenue that can be attributed to the first / last six miles of the trip (ie to/from Upwell). To create robust demand estimates, it's necessary to multiply the demand indicated above by the ratio of the demand weighted average trip distance / length of the W&U Tramway. It's therefore not quite as straightforward as I first thought and there is therefore a need for more than one cattle wagon.

I don't know what GER wagons were used for this traffic, but if I assume an older GER Diagram 16 5-plank wagon, I estimate that it could carry around 381 cubic feet (ie internal dimensions of around 14.5 ft x 7.5 ft x 3.5 ft). This website (https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight) indicates that a cubic foot of Manure weighs around 25lb, so one wagonload would be about 4.25 tons. Slightly less than 80,000 wagons would therefore be required for the traffic conveyed in 1922, but still an average or one or two wagons per day per station across the network. I think I therefore need to try and find out a bit more about this traffic, as it looks like I can't ignore it.